2019 Golf Ball Buyer’s Guide

Our Mission:

We are independent, unbiased and always put the #ConsumerFirst. We spend thousands of hours testing and researching products to help you get the most out of your game. This way you can be sure you have reviews you can trust. >> READ MORE

This is the most impactful test we have ever published.

Over the past 10 years, MyGolfSpy has conducted hundreds of tests, and published thousands of articles that have influenced millions of golfers, but no test has the potential to impact golfers and the industry more than this one. We’re not sure exactly when it happened, but at some point, marketing the golf ball became more important than the actual performance of the products themselves. Today, for the golf ball, that changes. Today we get to what’s real and true, and what will ultimately help golfers make smarter decisions about the golf balls they play.

6 KEY TAKEAWAYS

There’s so much myth and misinformation around the golf ball, it’s become next to impossible for average golfers to know what ball to play. The fact of the matter is that performance differences are real, though there is some evidence to suggest that some manufacturers are hoping you don’t notice. Confirmation bias is a powerful drug, and with so many factors contributing to the success of each shot, it’s far too easy for any of us to see the performance we want to see.

The ball you’re playing today might be costing you strokes.

Finding the right golf ball is hard. We’re here to help you find a better ball.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. Golf Ball Fitting is the Future

The more significant change to come from this test should be that the golf ball becomes part of every fitting conversation.

It’s evident that the industry as a whole needs to focus less on marketing (feel), and more on fitting golfers for balls that will actually help us shoot lower scores.

The golf ball is the only piece of equipment every golfer uses for every shot.

No golfer would leave almost 20-yards on the table because he likes the feel of a driver. Distance isn’t everything, but it matters. The same is true for greenside spin, launch characteristics, and every other aspect of golf ball performance. Fitting for the golf ball absolutely matters – in fact, it matters every bit as much as club fitting, and likely more. Our data suggests that the golf ball might be the single most important decision you make about what goes in your bag.

2. ALL GOLF BALLS ARE NOT THE SAME

Have you ever been told that all golf balls go the same distance? A quick Google search returns over 19 million results on the topic. While the internet might be confused, we’re not. Golf balls do NOT go the same distance, and the actual differences from ball to ball might surprise you.

Driver Distance (115 MPH): The average carry distance between the shortest and the longest ball in our test is 17.43 yards.

Driver Distance (85 MPH): The average carry distance between the shortest and the longest ball in our test is 7.6 yards.

Wedge Spin: There is an average of 1425 RPM difference from highest spinning to the lowest spinning ball in our test.

If that is not enough to convince you, consider this; at the fastest speed tested, the distance between the longest single ball and the shortest in the test was an astonishing 38.77 yards. For most golfers, that’s a 3+ clubs difference.

3. A Soft Golf Ball Is A Slow Golf Ball

A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee (unless you swing under 85 MPH) and spin around the green.

Firmer balls are faster, generally longer, and as an added benefit to many golfers, they spin more around the green.

We get that some of you love soft feel, but the reality is that the only golfers likely to see real performance benefits from low compression balls are high speed, high spin players. That’s probably not you.

4. Don’t Worry About Compressing The Golf Ball

Let’s tackle one of the most common golf ball myths. Forget what you might have heard, you swing fast enough to compress the core of the golf ball.

Our testing showed that golf balls do not perform differently at different swing speeds – at least not to any significant degree. Balls that are fast at 115 MPH are fast at 85 MPH. The bottom line is that a short ball doesn’t become a long ball when swing speed decreases.

Launch and spin relationships don’t change much either. While there can be exceptions, a ball that’s low spin off the driver, is often low spin off a wedge. Speed doesn’t change that relationship either.

5. Pick One Ball and Play it

We can’t emphasize this enough. After conducting this test, we’ve become firm believers in the idea that golfers should pick a ball and play it…exclusively.

There’s going to be some manufacturing variance between individual balls of the same model, but it’s nothing compared to the performance differences between models. Golf is hard enough, so it makes sense to eliminate every variable you possibly can. Choose one ball, and play it every round and every shot.

6. A Bad Shot Might Not Be Your Fault

You might be able to blame your next shot on your golf ball. That’s right; golfers might have a legitimate excuse the next time they play.

Our testing found some major inconsistencies in some ball models that resulted in shots that flew 20 yards or more offline (in high-speed testing). Given the consistency of the swing robot, this is something you would expect. The experts we spoke with believe the issues can be traced to manufacturing inconsistencies (ball not round, layers not centered, or a dimple irregularity). These same irregularities can cause inconsistent carry distances as well.

TEST NOTES

The Wet Wedge Test

DID YOU KNOW: A golf ball will perform differently if it is wet vs. when it’s dry. Golfers need to know how much difference there is and why it matters.

PRODUCT SPOTLIGHT - CG Balancing Technology

Maxfli says that its Center of Gravity Balancing Technology can produce a straighter (and higher) ball flight. While the jury is still out on what amounts to built-in Check-Go-Pro, functionality the Maxfli Tour and Maxfli Tour X CG balls are a surprisingly competent offering from the guy's at Dicks Sporting Goods.

While we can't guarantee the technology works as advertised, our test uncovered plenty of evidence to suggest that not all golf balls fly as straight as they should. Aligning the side stamp to a ball's true center of gravity might not solve all your problems, but it certainly can't hurt.

Durability and Quality

Given the cost of golf balls, you shouldn’t have to worry that they will cut or wear after a single shot. During our limited examination of durability and quality control we noted quality issues with the following balls:

The majority of balls in this test showed some degree of wear. In most cases, the visible damage was limited to small areas of missing paint that would be unlikely to impact performance.

Compression Testing

It’s important to note that like many things in the golf equipment industry, there’s no standard set of equipment to measure and report compression. We should also note that some manufacturers talk about total compression, while others focus the discussion on core compression.

Our compression measurements reflect total compression. When numbers differ from those of the manufacturer, it doesn’t mean anyone is lying. The tools are different, the operators are different. Don’t sweat the absolutes; focus on the data (below) for comparative purposes.

During consultations with experts from the ball industry, we were told that compression differences within the same box of balls can be significant (as high as 30 points). While we didn’t test the volume of samples that manufacturers typically do, we did find some cause for concern.

As you’ll see below, there’s a strong correlation between compression and ball speed. If compression is wildly inconsistent, your distances will be too.

EXPERT TIP: Finding the Right Ball

"How do I find the right golf ball?" It's one of the most commonly asked golf ball questions.

The conventional wisdom for golf ball fitting is to start near the green and work your way out. Over 60% of your shots are hit from within 150-yards of the green, so that's where you need your golf ball to perform. A good rule of thumb is to fit the golf ball to your irons and wedges and then fit your driver to the golf ball.

MORE TIPS

Forget About Soft Feel

Driver, putters, golf balls, it doesn’t matter; golfers are obsessed with feel, and it might be hurting your game. For golfers who swing 85 MPH or more, if your first purchase criteria is feel, you’re setting yourself back from the get-go. The softest balls are typically the best feeling, but they’re also slower and lower spinning. It should be obvious enough, but performance, not feel, should be your primary consideration.

Buy in Bulk to Save Money

Many of the DTC (Direct-To-Consumer) companies like Snell and Vice offer volume discounts. Many of the bigger brands offer early season incentives to encourage you to load up for the season. We suggest you commit to a ball and take advantage of the savings.

Spin Isn’t Everything

If you hit your pitching wedge 120 yards on average, you want it to go 120 yards when you hit it; what you don’t want is a ball that flies 120 yards and sucks back 15 feet. We all love the way that shot looks, but what you need is green-side control, and that doesn’t always mean you want the ball that spins the most with your wedge. The right ball for you is one that performs well over the entire golf course.

DID YOU KNOW: Temperature Affects Golf Ball Performance

Do everything to avoid storing your clubs (and balls) where they can be subjected to extreme temperatures. Your trunk, for example, probably isn't the best place to keep your golf bag.

Golf balls perform best at temperatures between 70°F and 90°F. If your ball is too cold, or too hot for that matter, you may lose speed and control.

FAQ

Q: If the cover of my ball is damaged, will it affect performance?

A: A little bit of missing paint won’t have any impact on ball flight, but cuts or gashes will impact the aerodynamics and consistency of flight. Once the cover is visibly damaged, it’s time to toss it in the shag bag and put a new ball in play.

Q: Should I use the ball I play with when I’m getting fit for golf clubs?

A: Whenever possible, yes. Launch, spin, and speed vary significantly between ball models, and that means there’s an integral link between ball performance and club performance. Getting fit for clubs using the same ball you play will help minimize variables and better replicate what you can expect on course. We understand getting fit with the same ball you play may not always be possible, but under no circumstance should you ever get fitted using range balls.

Q: Are Direct to Consumer balls as good as those from big golf companies?

A: While some direct to consumer brands produce excellent balls, it’s important to understand that larger brands like Titleist and Bridgestone do have more control over the entire manufacturing process, and there is some evidence to suggest that can lead to a more consistent product. If you’re willing to tolerate a bit more inconsistency from ball to ball, direct to consumer brands can offer tremendous savings.

Q: What is compression and what does it mean for me?

A: Compression is a measure of firmness and is most commonly associated with feel. The higher the compression value, the harder the ball will likely feel. There’s little evidence in our data to suggest that there’s a right compression for your speed. What’s important is finding a ball that provides the right balance of performance for your game. At most, feel should be a secondary concern when choosing a ball.

Q: Do the Pros play the same golf ball that I buy off the shelf?

A: Sometimes yes, but often no. While some pros do play the retail ball (Tiger’s Tour B XS is the same as what’s on shelves), nearly every manufacturer has a secret menu’s worth of tour-only balls available to its professional staff. Tour players are exacting about what they want from a golf ball, and the reality is that what appeals to the average golfer (soft feel) is detrimental at the tour level. The key takeaway is that what your favorite golfer plays has no bearing on what’s right for your game.

PRODUCT SPOTLIGHT - "Longest Ball in Golf 2019"

The Snell MTB-X is an exceptionally fast ball from the leader is the Direct-To-Consumer golf ball space. Distance isn't the MTB-X's only advantaged, however. Its length off the driver (by far, the longest at 115mph), is complemented by some of the highest spin numbers recorded in the wedge test.

A: For golf Ball Testing we used a robot. Robot testing is the best way to test golf ball performance, and humans are best to determine club performance.

Q: What were the selection criteria for the balls in the test?

A: In the interest of being as thorough as possible, we tested 33 balls with urethane covers. While some models are positioned at the fringe of the category, the goal was to include a majority of 3, 4, and 5-piece balls generally classified as Tour Balls. Out of curiosity, we also tested a yellow version of the Srixon ZStar, as well as two premium ionomer/surlyn covered balls (Callaway ERC Soft and Titleist Tour Soft) positioned to compete with premium urethane balls.

HOW WE TEST

Our Mission is to help you find the best golf ball for YOUR game.

We are 100% independent and unbiased, and we always put the #ConsumerFirst.

ABOUT OUR TEST

Testing was completed over the course of three days and included 34 tour quality urethane golf balls, plus two premium ionomer offerings. Using a Golf Laboratories Swing Robot, balls were tested with a driver, 7-iron, and sand wedge.

The Balls were tested at two swing speeds; 115mph and 85 mph the driver and equivalent speeds for the 7-iron. For wedge testing, the robot was configured to hit to a normalized distance of 85 yards (~70mph head speed).

LIMITING VARIABLES AND GATHERING DATA RELIABLY

Prior to each shot, balls were checked for signs of wear and any visibly damaged balls were replaced.

Full flight data was captured using a Trackman 4 launch monitor. At the conclusion of the test, data was checked for missing or anomalous results and aggregated.

Charts and Tables

For those who want to dive deeper, we’ve provided several views into our data. For each graph, we’ve provided a set of filters that will allow you to:

Limit your selection to whatever balls you’d like to display

Choose between driver, iron, and wedge data

Select high or low swing speed*

*While it’s not absolute, selecting both High and Low swing speed will give you a reasonable approximation of performance at a 100 MPH driver speed.

We’ve provided some basic observations for each chart, but mainly the data is yours to play with and interpret as you see fit. The launch and spin chart should prove particularly useful for those of you looking to identify something that might perform better for you than what you’re currently playing.

Ball Speed & Compression

Observations

The chart suggests a strong correlation between compression and ball speed off the driver. High compression balls are fast; low compression balls are slow.

There are occasions where balls can be classified as slightly fast (OnCore ELIXR, Maxfli Tour) or somewhat slow (Cut Grey, Kirkland 3-piece) relative to compression.

At 7-iron speeds, the relationship levels a bit, and we see softer balls rise to the top of the carry charts (below).

Looking at the wedge results, the compression/speed relationship can be described as inverse. Softer balls tend to be a bit faster but spin less (see the launch and spin chart below)

DID YOU KNOW: Pond balls

Do you play golf balls that you've fished out of pond? Don't.

Golf balls that have been submerged for a long period of time can actually become waterlogged. Golf ball cores are hydroscopic. That means they absorb water. If enough is absorbed, it can lower the compression of the golf ball. slow down the ball, and cost you distance.

You don't want that.

Launch & Spin

Observations

The MG Tour C4 is the lowest spinning ball off the driver though that’s largely attributable to significant spin inconsistencies at high speed.

At both speeds tested, there is approximately a 500 RPM difference between the highest spinning and lowest spinning urethane balls.

On high-speed iron shots, the lower compression set launches higher with less spin, though a couple of mid-to-high compression balls (TaylorMade TP5X, Vice Pro Plus) can also be described as high launch and low spin (depending on speed).

On high-speed irons shots, the Kirkland 3-piece and Volvik S4 are essentially outliers; significantly lower launch and higher spin than the other balls tested.

Iron spin differences from lowest to highest can vary by upwards of 2000 RPM

On wedge shots, the Mizuno RB Tour X, Kirkland Signature 3-Piece, and Volvik S4 again produced the highest spin rates.

The low compression set is notable for its low spin, though the 2 Callaway offerings are on the low end of the average range.

The Snell MTB X is notable for being among the lowest spinning off the driver, but among the highest spinning balls off the wedge.

What's the deal with all the LAYERS?

How many layers do you need in a golf ball? The urethane, tour ball category is filled with three, four, and even five-layer golf balls. How is the average golfer supposed to make sense of it?

While more layers can lead to more nuanced performance, it doesn't matter how many layers your ball has. If the ball does what you need it to do, do waste your time and energy counting layers. Check out our list of the best performing balls to help narrow down your selection, buy a sleeve of each, and then try them out for yourself to see which is best for your game.

Carry & Offline

Observations

At high swing speed, there’s a fair amount of separation between balls.

The Snell MTB-X is notable for being several yards longer than the next closest ball, while the low compression set is appreciably shorter than the average.

Due to the robot producing slight draws, this set finished, on average, a bit left of the target line; however, the balls average more than 8 yards left of center and less than 2 yards off center typically displayed some degree of inconsistency between shots.

At slower swing speeds, the majority of balls are concentrated between 201 and 203 yards (carry).

At lower swing speeds, several of the low compression balls moved into the average range, though none – with the possible exception of the OnCore ELIXR – could be considered long.

On high-speed iron shots, the low compression balls rise to the top for distance, most notably the Bridgestone Tour B RXS and the Titleist AVX.

The Kirkland 3-piece lags approximately 4-yards behind the leaders.

While environmental factors may have played a small role, some balls were shown to be consistently straighter than others.

On slower speed, iron shots, lower spinning, lower compression balls are generally longer, though not by as much.

The Kirkland Signature 3-piece is again appreciable shorter than the longest balls.

On wedge shots, dispersion is generally excellent, with all but one ball (QStar Tour) falling within a yard of the center line.

While wedge distance was also generally tight, there was still nearly 4 yards between the longest (Maxfli Tour) and shortest (Cut Blue) balls.

Urethane or Surlyn?

When it comes to the cover material of your golf ball, you've got two main choices - Urethane and Suryln.

Urethane is softer, thinner, and offers complete performance from tee to green. While some Surlyn offerings may offer more distance, urethane balls will spin more, and perform more consistently on the various shots that you'll face around the green, and across the entire golf course.

Surlyn is a great value option, but with plenty of affordable urethane offerings available in today's market, you don't need to sacrifice performance to save a few bucks.

Raw Data (Averages and Standard Deviations)

We’ve also provided launch monitor data as well as dispersion and compression data. For this test, we’ve also included standard deviations for the same metrics, which can provide a general idea of consistency.

Please note: we call our dispersion metric Shot Area. For this test, it represents the area (measured in yards2) of a 2-sigma confidence ellipse. In simple terms, it’s a measure of how tightly grouped the shots hit with each ball are. A smaller number represents tighter dispersion.

Support Unbiased Testing.

Our job is your game.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS

MyGolfSpy

Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your
money, time and performance.
That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust,
as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game
today.
#PowerToThePlayer

637 Comments

Kleiner

scorley22

2 months ago

I have been playing a “soft” ball for years… Recently switched to the Snell MTBX and WOW! What a huge difference (especially off the tee)! Around the green, I do miss the feel of a softer ball, but the results are there.

Matt Rogers

3 months ago

Exactly what I was looking for – really great work. Would love to have seen a couple of range balls thrown in there to get a sense for how far off my range practice is compared to my game ball (Srixon Z-Star).

Tom

Berniez40

6 months ago

I bought a doble dozen pack and have the following to say. I used to play the Super Hot 70 and loved it..much more than the 55. True to the Golfspy Test the 70 being a somewhat firmer ball got a few more yards for me. This newer one feels a shade softer thtan the 55 and trails the 70 by a few yards. It flies vetry quickly to it’s apex, at which point it converts to wounded duck status and literally drops out of the sky with very litle roll out. At least that’s how it reacts to my clubs and swing. Like a lot of balls in the Golfspy Test—it “FEELS” great, but it is no better than the SuperHot55 which is the prevous model at COstco. If you like the 55, just imagine the same ball with a softer feel, a higher ball flight, and a slightly softer landing with roughly the same overall distance.

Tom

Thanks for your reply! I know this is a tough question but what ball in the Golfspy Test do you think it might be closest to?

Berniez40

6 months ago

TOM—–It’s actually a tweener—Somewhere Between the Srixon Q-Star and the Callaway ERC Soft.. You won’t get quite as much spin, but at roughly the same distance and feel it’s a good call.

Steve Waters

6 months ago

I’m a 15 handicapper, driver speed around 105mph, and I usually play the Srixon Z Star and went to buy a new dozen before playing the weekend just gone. For for some reason I decided to try the Callaway Supersoft as they were on special. Anyway when I hit my third Callaway into the water my playing partner threw me a used ball out of my bag, a TourStage S-100 that I must have found somewhere. Anyway my ball striking and game just turned around. I went from a 58 on the front nine barely driving 220m; to a 40 on the back nine, with nearly a hole in one and a wind assisted 290m drive! I was so impressed with the ball I immediately google it to find out the TourStage is/was a Bridestone ball. I’m guessing the S-100 is the compression, so just trying to figure out which Bridgestone ball is most like the TourStage S-100….

I can definitely vouch that playing the wrong ball can be detrimental to your game and playing the right ball can improve it dramatically.

Berniez40

6 months ago

It’s actually a two piece ball of unremarkable technology. However, I must admit that I have hit several 2-piece Japanese Golf Balls that blow the doors off of their American Counterparts. Suffice it to say–a two piece will usually fly straighter. Here’s a link that should help you on your quest for the holy grail. Watch out for the killer rabbit.

Berniez40

7 months ago

I don’t want to be the late comer resurrecting a zombie thread, but I have to put in my two cents for both My Golf Spy and The Maxfli Tour. I’ve read comments both good and bad on this guide, and I think the writers of the snarky commentary need to do a little more inward searching and engage in a lot less outtward sniping. I used to write golf ball reviews for several years. I had a large folllowing and over 2 million hits to my reviews. Like it or not—what My Golf Spy has done here is quite possibly the most excellent review and guide I have ever seen. People need to learn to read objective reviews like this with objectivity in mind—and check their “Feelings” at the door. Even using simulators as well as golf course performance as my tools—I never came close to achieving anything nearly as helpful as this review. –Why?—Because I am not a robot like Iron Byron, and I do not have the resources at my disposal that these guys have. Believe me—I’ve watched video reviews, read thousands of reviews, and wrote 100’s of them myself. Shut up and read the data. It’s not a sales pitch for The Snell MTB-X—it’s a wealth of data that you can use. Viewed objectively, you just might find the right ball for your game this season and next. I know I did.

After reading the My Golf Spy ball review a few months ago I bought three dozen Maxfli Tours on a flash sale for $19.98 ea. The first round I played with them, I saw no increase in distance though the ball did seem to fly a little straighter, except for when my dumb butt got tired and started lifting my arms more than turning my hips.
Then I started serving up more slices than Tony’s Pizza Parlour. Heck, even the illegal fly straight Polara Ball can’t prevent that slice once the arms start overruling the hips. Well to make a long story longer, I was sort of impressed, but still hadn’t found “My New Ball for Next Season.” As is the case with a lot of delusional golfers who have been brain-washed by marketing hype, I figured my arthritic shoulders needed a softer ball that I could “compress” off of my driver. More on that later.

I was out testing balls again the other day trying to make up my mind between the Cally Chrome Soft and some other “Tour Ball.” I hated both of them. Keep in mind- I don’t even have a very impressive swing speed, roughly 85 MPH so it’s not that 105 +MPH Guy dissing on the softer tour balls—-it’s simply that they may have”Felt Good” but failed to “Add any distance whatsoever.” In fact—they were losing distance compared to my old gamer. As I turned for the back nine, I reached into my bag for some more tees, and discovered I had left one of the Maxfli Tours in there. I figured “What the ****? I’ve already got a mediocre round going thanks to these mushy feeling go nowheres, so why not play this Maxfli till I lose it?”

So this is where the “Aha Moment” happened. According to the “RAW DATA” laid out in the My Golf Spy Tables, the Maxfli Tour is fast for its compression rating—especially for us 85 MPH Swingers. so why was I having trouble getting distance out of it the first time? I’ll tell you why, and why I think so many people want to like the softer feeling balls, and on occasion in real life, actually tend to get a bit more distance out of them.

Face it—we are not robots. Unlike Iron Byron, we “FEEL” the ball at impact. Those of us who have been conditioned to like the feel of softer balls over the past few years –myself included, actually blanch at the moment of impact with a harder/harsher feeling ball. That split second of transition—IMPACT/FOLLOW THROUGH—is the most critical split second of the golf swing as far as generating extra yardage goes. After realizing that, and remembering the My Golf Spy Distance vs. Compression Chart, I realized it was time to think–”Damn the harshness—full swing ahead” and just power through the moment of impact—-no matter what I “FELT”. “
The Maxfli was launching a good 7-10 yards past the Chrome Soft, and I even played them off the tee side by side for several holes just to make sure it wasn’t the swing adjustment alone gaining the extra distance. I’d hate to embarrass Callaway with the results of the time I caught a Maxfli Tour right on the screws so I’ll leave that one out—–again—we are not robots. THe Maxfli also putted and chipped extremely well, and it put the 200+ yard bullets back in my 3 wood. Last but not least , at 2 dozen for $50—it rates very highly on the “Cheap Bastard Scale” which measures dollar spent vs performance gained. –THANKS MY GOLF SPY for putting it out there. All of it .Damn the cynics–full steam ahead!

Russell ( Montreal-Canada )

Berniez40

4 months ago

Glad to help. LOL

Steve

7 months ago

It would be great if you could do a similar test with the mid cost and lower cost types of ball – such as the Taylormade Project a, Srixon Q-Star, etc..
Those of us that cannot afford the “tour level priced balls” but want to play a better ball have a hard time determining what to try without any data to compare so we know where to start.

Gauchograd99

7 months ago

Steve,

This difference between the “tour” and “mid” balls would be interesting to see, but my guess would be most “mid” balls would fall within statistical variation of each other with the exception of the off-center cored “bad balls” here and there. They would also not perform as well in all areas of testing compared to “tour” balls. Most “mid” balls are softer balls, and as we’ve heard many times: “Softer is Slower.” Also, Quality Control costs money, and the only ways to get the price point of a ball down are to minimize quality checks/testing and to use cheaper components and production methods.

I would propose a testing of the “Most Played Balls” from each ball type (beginner/mid range/”tour”). How much of a difference in ball response (distance/spin/accuracy) is there between ball price ranges? Anyone at MGS want to throw their $0.02 in?

Aside: I am certain someone will bring this up, but technically speaking 2-3 of the “tour level priced balls” would be at/near the price point for the “mid cost” balls…. and they ranked quite well in the “tour” testing performed. Snell balls run around $28 – $33 based on how many dozen you purchase at a time. OnCore runs $35 for the Elixr (less in bulk, and I believing they still have a 5% discount for having an account with them, so about $33.25 for a single dozen). I think the Project A is the upper end of the pricing, and that would be about $30 if my quick look around the internet is accurate. If that is accurate, buying 2 dozen Snell would be a “higher quality” ball for less than the “big brand, mid range” ball.

kym stock

4 months ago

I watched a U.K. based You Tube ball review test and they found the Srixon AD333 ball to be a good performer at a reasonable price.

Gary L

7 months ago

I must’ve missed this, I just saw the GolferUK one using the PXG Robot, so I’m going to compare them, but IIRC alot of similarities.
I do remember that the ProV1 and X showed tighter dispersion (they listed as 1-4 or 5 IIRC, they were a 1-:Z-Stars were a 2).
My ball for the last ~4 years has been a Z-Star exclusively(I give away EVERY ball I find, or just leave it) so I’m not surprised that it did so well. It has enough spin, is plenty long, is really durable in comparison,, and if you look around, can be had for $20 dz..which is a phenomenal deal. I’m ~95mph, so it seems to fit me fine.
It was good to actually see the compression test/distance spin at different swing speeds, that was an eye opener for many I’m sure.
Thanks for the effort and info, great work.
Calloway….wow….

Colby

7 months ago

So, I’ve recently gotten back into golf after being away for 13+ years. Im 35yrs old and haven’t really played serious golf, although I loved to play a casual game back in my college years. I’ve recently met a co-worker that loves to play and I’ve gotten pretty serious about improving my play (15+ hdcp). I’ve just learned that I should choose – 1 – golf ball and stick with it – in the past I’ve just grabbed what ever balls I have and play with them – random extra balls I may have found on the golf course… and boxes of balls I received as gifts from family. That said:

There is so much information out there, and as a “beginner” – its a bit overwhelming. I don’t really know what to do with the info or how to choose a ball that works for me. I want something relatively cheap – and was thinking about settling on the Callaway Supersoft or Chrome Soft X because they are cheap enough from walmart. But – now I guess I should probably focus on more of a distance golf ball? And – looks like the Snell MTB-X is a good ball – especially for beginners? My golf partner said I should that those balls are pretty good – and really good value. I see that it was chosen on this page as a great value as well. Any tips on how a beginner should choose a ball? How I should test different balls/brands? Or should I simply choose a ball to start with and once my hdcp starts dropping then experiment? Just wonder on best ways to choose/experiment. Thanks!

Kyle

4 months ago

Dean Snell has a good fitting protocol on Snell’s website where he talks about starting from the green (bouncing a few balls off of the putter face) and working back to the tee (putter, chip, pitch, approach, etc.)

Charlie

8 months ago

I have receive a grave deal more than I expected upon opening up this link. Oh, the decisions I have before me now. I love the feel of Callaway’s Supersoft, Titleist’s Tour Soft, and Maxfli’s Soft feel, so now what do I do? Try the Snell, Bridgestone, and V1. Any insights?

Alex

8 months ago

As we approach the fall/cooler months, I have read that as the temperature drops below 50, a lower compression golf ball is better for distance. Will you ever get a chance to do the test in cold weather?

FrankN

We haven’t done any more digging on that subject (yet). As you can probably imagine, the ball test was quite an eye-opener for us, and consequently, we’re looking at ways to both talk about and present golf balls differently.

What we’ve found is that nearly anybody who makes a golf ball can achieve a certain performance specificaton. For example, looking at the basics – Ball Speed (strongly correlated to compression), Launch, and Spin – extreme edges aside, pick nearly any ball in the test and you can find 5 more that are similar. The aerodynamic piece is difficult to quantify, but otherwise, it’s not difficult for a manufacturer to churn out a ball that performs like [whatever ball you want it to perform like]. The real differences are in the quality control and the consistency of the product. It’s not so much the averages as it is the standard deviations.

So getting back to ZStar vs. ZStar yellow…start with looking at the cutaway images we posted. The cores are visibly different. That’s important to point out because what golfers don’t seem to understand is that coloring a urethane cover ball isn’t as simple as adding some pigment and calling it a day. It’s not so much color as it is chemistry. To make yellow, you have to tweak both the cover formulation and the casing layer formulation – and apparently the core formulation as well. The little tweaks are necessary to make yellow play like white. So what I would say is that the balls are close, but not identical, which is why there are some differences in the launch and spin characteristics.

Regarding dispersion – in hindsight, we’ve seen that golfers are getting caught up in the absolutes (inflating the value of a yard or two…or even fractions of yards). While variability is minimal with the robot, it still exists, and while weather influence (wind) was minimal, it still exists, and of course – as we know – there can be significant variation from ball to ball (though ZStar is unquestionably better than most), all of those things can contribute to dispersion differences.

Next time, for the sake of simplicity and not muddying the waters, I’d be inclined to hold back some of the data and instead, put a letter grade or something like that on dispersion. In that context, while there is some difference in the numbers, I would rate them on level ground for consistency while saying that there are slight differences in performance.

Walter

8 months ago

Tony, Thanks for your comments. It will be interesting to see if Srixon makes some changes to the yellow ZStar.
Also, have you read this article-
ROBOT TESTED: Which golf ball suits my game?
Published: 16 September 2019 by Todays Golfer. I believe it’s an UK outfit. They used PXG’s test facility for all the ball tests. Surprising how their data differs a lot for MGS. Can you comment on their data etc.

Daniel Lewis

5 months ago

I think a lot of this data validates what I have seen with most of these balls.

However, I don’t quite understand the grading scale at the beginning. For example, Srizon Z Stars are are rated Excellent ( Up there with Titleist Prov 1 and Tour BX), yet as with my experience and your tests they come up shorter than the top balls and even on mid swing iron shots go further offline.

According to your own test a ball like the TP5 and TP5X is longer and stays more online and gets better ball speed and TP5 more spin. So why not put that ball at excellent?

Lastly, what’s up with leaving Project A out of the study?? All the other brands got their cheaper low compression tour ball tested. Even balls like the ERC which isn’t even a Urethane ball?

I promise I don’t work for Taylormade. Lol

Jarod

9 months ago

This is brilliant. Please do this test next year as well.

Feedback: Provide stats for the majority of golfers in that in between swing speed of 100 mph. 85 and 115 are extremes. Or, if that’s too much data to parse, go for 90 mph and 110. More relevant for the majority of players.

Brian

Jim A

9 months ago

It’s curious why the 2-piece Titleist Tour Soft was included in this test when all of the other balls are 3- or 4-piece. But on that point, it would be nice if MGS repeated this test with just 2-piece balls.

Peter

Regarding the inclusion of the Ionomer balls – we included ERC Soft, TourSoft, and QStar because of how they are positioned in the market (almost tour quality). It was a curiosity as much as anything else.

As far as a two-piece test goes. Bluntly – probably not. There are far too many offerings (robot testing is expensive and time-consuming) and (also bluntly) the only real argument for playing them is cost, but given the rise of lower cost DTC urethane offerings, playing two-piece doesn’t make much sense.

Bill

10 months ago

This was a great, informative ball test. Furthermore, I’d like to thank Tony Covey for checking in on the thread and further explaining testing procedures, variances and the importance of being fit personally.
Really one of the best discussions on here. Guys like DB make some great points (really talented golfers can use 30 year old irons and persimmon and still beat the tar out of average golfers). That said, he protests too much on the validity of data. This test IS a VERY useful tool that one should take in to a private fitter. I have really enjoyed the new Snell MTB-X. GREAT value ball although I noticed over time while it performs well, it ISN’T as accurate as the Pro V1x for me off the driver. The numbers from the test appear to validate my suspicions. The deviation from center numbers are what I consider most important and the Pro V1X is tough to beat. One step further, when I’m not practicing at least a couple times a week in addition to playing, I’m just as likely to do well with a 2 piece Surlyn ball (OK, an exaggeration, but you get what I’m saying) . Get fit, practice, take lessons for your weaknesses and THEN you can worry about the minutiae. But when you get your swing to YOUR best, then you should be able to tell the minute differences.
But I take away valuable info from all the testing from MGS, understanding that it’s a great starting point, not the end all.

David Keppler

10 months ago

Love your site and tests! Question on this very detailed ball test, as I look for a new/better ball I was taking notes and crossed off the balls that had quality issues (went over 20 yards offline & cutting open) and those that went to far offline. Then I saw your Performance Chart and it confused me, several of the balls you said had quality issues you have in your Very Good (SrixonXV & TMTP5X), am I not reading this correctly? And balls that had high marks were lower on the chart, like ViceSoft/Pro, which had no quality issues, were close to center line than most and performed well in all your tests, why werent those higher? I swing driver around 97 and my favs right now are TP5, Vice Soft, and Prov1. Thanks. Dave in AZ

Ranger76

10 months ago

I have been thru 10 boxes of cut grey, been struggling with distance with the irons.
Switched to Kirkland, first round was 81, 2nd 83 with 3 triples, third was 82, and I feel the added distance off the tee and accuracy on par threes is helping. My handicap has dropped 4 points so far in 2 months. Glad I switched.

JonathanD

10 months ago

I played on a course last weekend that I have never played. Started off my round with the Kirkland 3pc. Smoked my drive on 1 and was still 175 out. Thought it a bit odd as I typically get 240-250 off the driver. I only got 210. My second swing was just about the same and a little less as I got 205. Switched mid-round to the Bridgestone Tour B RXS and immediately started getting my 240 again. Hit one 265 which is rare for me, but every now and then it happens. Really hard to believe that the Kirkland tested as well as it did in your tests. My swing speed is just at 100 on average and obviously sometimes reaches upwards of 105. My wife bought me the Kirklands and I’m tempted to put them in my son’s golf bag. Can you think of any reason to continue playing them and why they did so well in your tests?

JonathanD

10 months ago

Played another round yesterday and decided to test out my theory. When I hit the Kirkland off the tee, I was consistently 20-25 yards behind my playing partner with whom I’m typically even or better off the tee. When I switched over to the Bridgestone, I was back to being even with him. Maybe I got a bad batch of these Kirklands, and my theory certainly isn’t scientific in any way shape or form, but it just seems odd that this Kirkland ball tested out well in your tests and only shows a few yards behind the Bridgestone in carry.

DanP

9 months ago

I experienced the same as you Jonathan. I was asking my son if he saw any difference in my swing because I was losing 15-25 yards with the Kirkland. Switched back to Snell today and I’m back. Thank Gawd!

Steve Davis

8 months ago

Johnathand – there is a recall announcement for the Signature balls in the last Costco magazine, it mentions poor quality. I think you should return them to Costco and get your money back.

Rob Said

7 months ago

I found a Kirkland ball on dry land and decided to give it a go. I’m a very respectable, 1.48 smfac and a 6 on an average day. I played 2 holes with it. It was shorter than than the pv, vice pp and Callaway CS. Crap ball. I thought I just got a bad one so I gave it to my playing partner! Lol no second chances on balls. They either work or they don’t. I just ordered a doz mtb black and mtb x to try out. I lost a bit of confidence in the vice pp when I played 2 balls practicing against the pv. Gonna try Snell.

Brad

JonathanD

9 months ago

Brad, I let my playing partner play with the Kirkland last week. He lost about 12 yards on his driver on average. On one hole, I was playing the BXS and out drove him by 20 yards. We are both 8hcpers. There was no tricking my mind – I’m a decent enough golfer to know when the ball I’m playing is trash, and these Kirkland 3pc balls are just that.

Gerry11

3 months ago

Jonathand same for me, I could not work
Out how my average drive went from 230-240 all the way back to 210 or less. I certainly don’t feel like my swing is any less then it used to be although at 57 I realize I’m not 30 anymore. Also, I used to hit my 7 iron average 155-158 consistently, now I’m finding myself at 145+- . I do however like the feel around the green with the Kirkland and I putt very well with t too.

Mark M

11 months ago

Interesting Testing of Key Takeaway #6 “A Bad Shot Might Not Be Your Fault:
Our testing found some major inconsistencies in some ball models that resulted in shots that flew 20 yards or more offline (in high-speed testing)… The experts we spoke with believe the issues can be traced to manufacturing inconsistencies (ball not round, layers not centered, or a dimple irregularity).”

Yesterday I finally bought a Check-Go and tested golf balls at home for balance consistency.
If you’ve never seen or heard of Check-Go, it spins the ball at around 10,000 rpm, which automatically realigns the balls heaviest areas along its equator. During the spin you mark it. The test then is to realign the ball in the device so the mark is not on top, I usually put it with the mark at the equator, and then re-spin. If the ball goes back to having that mark on top again , you’ve got an out of balance ball.

OK Results:
Part 1 – batch of balls from my bag and found balls waiting to go in the bag were a mixture of Bridgestone B300s, Titleist ProVs, TM TP5 & Chrome Soft. 11 were out of balance out of about 30. I dint’ keep track of which model, was kind of dumbfounded at the time.
Part 2 – 2 dozen brand new in the box 2018 Bridgestone Tour B XS = 6 out of balance, 1 box had 4 & the other 2 (That’s 1/4 of the balls you’re paying for that are good for the shag bag only!)
Part 3 – 6 new balls, all Titleist ProVs, I got from Korn Ferry players last weekend working as a walking scorer at the TPC Colorado tournament. ALL WERE GOOD (another perk of playing on tour I guess).

Conclusion – I’m damn sure going to test every frickin ball I put in play from now on! Unbelievable!

Mark M

Bud Zielinski

11 months ago

Recently bought “mint” Titleist AVX on Ebay from LostGolfBalls. I wanted “recycled” vs “Refinished”. I believe I got “Refinished” as:
1. All the balls have the same number
2. The color of every ball is exactly the same
3. There are no logos or player dots/lines or other user markings on any ball.
4. None of the balls looked like they have ever touched the ground or the face of a golf club.
Is there a way to tell the difference ?
Bud

Yes. Though from what you’re describing they’re refinished. Put your markings on one. The refinished don’t mark the same. You’ll see and feel the difference. Your markings also come off easier than you’d like. If they weren’t done well you can see “sags” in the finish. The dimples will also look somewhat filled.

I tried some refinished TM’s a few years back at a great price. Never again.

Scott C.

11 months ago

I have a swing speed somewhere around 75-80 according to a launch monitor in my local sporting goods store. That has me hitting around 160-170 or so. However, on the course I seem to hit be driving between 200-220, hitting my 3 wood around 180 or so. On the course, I’ve been using Bridgestone e6 soft. Given my swing speed, would I benefit from a lower compressing ball. And if so, any recommendation as to how low? There are some balls out there with compression rates as low as 35, which seems excessive, even for me.

Scott C.

11 months ago

Yes, starting this year, I am hitting more wedge shots from that range. My long game has been getting a little better putting me in that range more often.

David

11 months ago

I notice the Srixon Z Star is one of the top recommended balls, along side pro v and Bridgestone tour x. Curious how the Z Star made the top stop as I do not see it near the top of any one category. I personally play the Z Star and love it, just don’t see where it stood out.

Jeff

11 months ago

It looks like the Z Star has tight dispersion for the driver and 7-iron – 3235 in combined speed driver, and 1041 square yards in combined speed 7-iron. Driver distance combined speed is 241.29 vs. max of 245.547 for MTB-X. Maybe that is why?

KY

JBe

11 months ago

There is a lot of great info in this test, thank you! One point of clarification please. I completely embrace your takeaway that on-center hits at almost any swing speed get more distance with high compression balls. But one of the benefits of softer (low compression) balls is that they still compress on off-center hits (i.e. human golfers, not robots), meaning less distance loss than harder (high compression) balls on mis-hits. Would love to hear MSG’s thoughts on this.

JW

11 months ago

I’am a moderate swingspeed guy (99mph with driver) and I use Srixon Qstar Tour/AD333 Tour in Europe (best price/performance IMO, 22dollar on sale per dozen). Looking at the conclusion/performance breakdown this ball recieves a “Fair” rating. I have few questions regarding this rating:
-the ball generates 2 miles less ball speed vs proV1 with driver (could result in shorter distance) but it carries further (0,5 yard) and more online than the proV1 is this due to the lower backspin?
-also with 7 iron carry distance is futher, launch angle is higher and less offline. Less backspin though. Could the higher launch compensate for the lack of backspin? In terms of stopping power.
Regarding the numbers (selecting both high and low to achieve the average setting, more in line with my swingspeed) and find this ball to perform above fair… in straightness, distance and stopping (even with the somewhat lower spin).
What where the references or guidelines for dividing the balls into the different catagories? (For instance “fair” for the Qstar tour).

Thanks guys for a great comparison/test! Like many commenting on this site I found it both informative and interesting. It’s always fun to read of new products and keep up with the ever changing landscape of the golf world. For years I only played ProV1x’s. Not due to test results, but playing I found the ball to give me the best results. This year I’ve decided to try other brands due to the ever increasing price points of some balls and out of curiosity. I’ve found Srixon Z and Qstars to be very comparable. Z star does have more spin, as shown in the testing, but Q star I’ve found traveled the same distance for me. (Low to mid 90,s SP) It just has a higher flight. Just won a couple dozen Snell MTBx’s in a Snell contest and am looking forward to giving them a go. My point in sharing all this is even if the test results showed these particular balls to not perform as well for the robot as for me, I would still play them. Yes we sometimes become loyal to a brand, to the point of fighting with others over their worth, but the end result is how it works for me. Again, I love reading reviews, watching reviews on all area’s of golf products and I look forward every morning to the next edition of MGS. Keep up the great work!

Marty Weber

James

Superb bit of work, this is pretty much the test I have dreamed of but please please please, do monthly updates to this test adding new balls to the mix.

It will keep the article fresh and of continued interest to more readers who have balls which are not in this list and it should not take too much work to add a few more balls to the mix.

I am dropping my existing ball and using those in this list as my new basis for comparison. I have some very funky swing/grip flaws combined with a high speed/high spin swing and for some time, I have been trying out different balls convinced the impact of them were bigger than what I was always told.

Phil B

12 months ago

Interesting comparison but I have tried lots of different balls, Pro V1, TP5, Srixon Z Star etc and for me, I get the best distance and control with the Chromesoft truvis balls. I am not sure what my swing speed is but I play off 10 so I think how you strike the ball must have a big impact on what ball works

Kevin

11 months ago

Thanks for the link but how do you “compare what ever ball you like”? My son (8, 55 swing speed ) plays the Wilson Duo and I want add this ball. Your spreadsheet only has 13 ball choices. Please let me know.

Kevin

Nick

12 months ago

Great article! I was surprised to see some of the results from this test. The Snell MTB-X was the farthest launching ball by far on the driver, showed some great spin values with a wedge too. Still not sure I’d game that ball though, It had the 6th worst shot area off the driver mostly due to having the worst stdev of offline. It goes along ways out there but, has a fairly wide landing area. I’d want something that has a bit tighter landing area. Great value though.

The three balls that stand out to me are the Titliest Pro V1X, Bridgestone Tour B XS, and the Vice Pro. All three balls performed well on all the tests and had tight landing areas.

mackdaddy

12 months ago

I have noticed when I play that the Chrome soft balls are about 4-5 yards longer with my irons and straighter. I hit far more irons than drivers. I swing driver at 99-101 mph. I tried the Bx from bridgestone and the brx too. I fell like I am hitting the ball thin with the bx. It is longer off the tee for sure. I just feel like around the greens and with irons the Chrome soft is better for me. I plan to try the TP5 this month and the Pro V1x too then I will make a final choice.

U

Steven Daniel

11 months ago

there’s a few holes in the data and as a mechanical engineer i could be skeptical of some of it. test conditions aren’t explained and i would like to have seen lofts and how they measured carry down to a hundredth on a yard.

Donald Drumpf

11 months ago

Since I started playing Chromesoft ™balls I haven’t missed a put from inside 20 yards, that my hair is thicker and more luxurious, I’ve lost 20 pounds in weight, I’ve beaten Vladmir Puttin in match-play, random women think I’m Phil Mickelson, and Stormy Daniels says I’m better in bed than Tiger Woods. And length? Don’t get me started on my length. Its Huuuuge. Jeb Bush brought that up once and look what happened to him. But when you swing at 180 mph as I you its what you expect. I’ll bet the losers that believe in Science and statistical analysis who play Titliest ProVxs can’t claim any of that. Chromesoft ™. The ball that is making America Great Again.

Funkaholic

Thomas

Gordo

12 months ago

Interesting – in 2009 you published an article that clearly stated there was no difference between new and used balls these days.
Have things changed – seems to me any difference would have decreased since then.

A really thorough and interesting review. For me the most relevant data was the off line but most important was the shot area.
As a ”slow swinger” the Vice Pro was very good with all clubs, two firsts with driver and wedge and second with the 7 iron. Although the Callaway Chrome Soft was not rated well in the test, it was second for 7 iron and wedge and 4th with the driver.
It is clear that the Chrome Soft does not work for the very fast swingers

Interesting to come back and revisit the data after playing the Maxfli Tour to start the season. Needed it to warm up a bit to see consistent results. My experience is most quality urethane balls perform well. That said being able to run into Dick’s and grab two dozen for $50 more often than not will keep them in my bag for the foreseeable future. I use the COG alignment off tees and my bad shots don’t seem as bad. I’ve also switched to 3 wood off the tee unless it’s an absolute go for driver. Meaning minimal chance of a penalty stroke or buried in trees I don’t want to be in. Is it my swing? Is it hitting driver less? Is it the ball? Don’t know. Just know it’s the best start to a season I’ve ever had as my scores have ticked down by a solid 5 strokes plus on average. Best point to glean from the above mountain of data is PLAY ONE BALL AND ONE BALL ONLY. I removed all others. Does it really matter? Don’t know. But I’m interested to hear the scoring results from others who’ve heeded that advice.

alex

12 months ago

How did you find the durability? Whenever I hit a full sandwedge flush with my slow swing speed (driver SS is 90), the ball tended to blemish or scuff. Granted it was one or two times a round, and the ball speed was much faster. t

Outstanding. Haven’t tossed one yet for that. Funny you asked this as I just cleaned up the 2 balls I played yesterday. And those were the optic green matte finish. They clean up great. Stayed away from the matte white as I wasn’t keen on the Vice white matte for that reason. The standard white is terrific though…….Just checked them all and not a scuff to be found. Sans one that met a tree. Glancing blow. Barely a flesh wound. Btw our swing speeds are in the neighborhood.

Matt N.

12 months ago

Just wanted to follow up on the results of my own tinkering with the MTB-X and Prov1 & Prov1x. I have always played Prov1x’s and loved this ball, didn’t think I would ever switch. However, the last month and a half I have been using all three of the mentioned balls and am amazed to say that I am switching the the MTB-X. I routinely hit 300+ so distance is not an issue for me, but over the past few years I have noticed a slightly tougher cover on the Prov1x’s. The reason why I am switching is actually because my greenside spin has increased significantly with this ball. It feels like it has a slightly softer cover and “checks” more controllably than what I am experiencing with recently released Prov1 models. Also, the ball does not have cut marks like other balls I use with softer covers.

Although distance wise it was not a noticeable difference, the control I had from 100 in was what motivated my switch. Really surprised wth this ball and thanks so much for getting me to open up to new products!

Brandon M

12 months ago

With the Srixon BOGO offer they should now be crowned best value balls in addition to being in the excellent tier. I don’t know what the Snell bulk discount is like in the US, but in Canada you can’t beat the Z star for $2 a ball.

Dan F

Nihonsei

12 months ago

Me Three agree! You do mean $22 per doz yeah? I found Gen 6 XV for $20 per on TGW so I was able to order in odd numbers at same value. 5doz + FREESHIP99.

alex

12 months ago

I took the plunge and bought the Z star two for one deal– because of the high ranking. I’m curious whether my 90mph swing speed will benefit– it ranked below the Maxfli tour for low swing speed driver distance. (I found the Maxfli tour to give added ball speed and distance over the Qstar, but I found that if you swing a full sand wedge, the cover may scuff.)

Timbo

11 months ago

Did the same. Bought 6 dozen at that price and have to admit i’m really impressed with the durability and consistency of the Z Star. Gaming these exclusively until I run through 6 dozen – the BOGO is long over.

Had been playing the original Snell MTB and still have a dozen – love the ball – likely to go back (can’t beat the price and quality) but not sure which Black or X.

Buddy

Steve

12 months ago

Thank you for the testing. Because of your results, I have switched from the Titleist ProV1 to the Bridgestone Tour B XS Optic Yellow. Absolutely love this ball. Driving it 4 to 7 yards farther, and hitting the irons a half club longer. Spin is just fine. I have stocked up with the buy three get one free. Again, thanks for your work!

Derh

Mike

1 year ago

I’d like to thank you for doing this type of testing. Having actual data for comparison, can on,y help us make informed decisions instead of just buying into the latest hype. One question I do have however, pertains to the TP5 and TP5X.
How can the TP5 have a longer carry distance than the TP5X when it has slower ball speed , lower launch angle AND higher spin? Thanks

Brian

jason

1 year ago

Tremendous work here. I can’t understand why anyone would be critical of raw data. i have one question i would love to have cleared up….

The srixon q-star tour had an average offline for 115 mph driver swing speed of -1.71 yards (one of the best in the test) but the standard deviation of offline was 20.05 yards which i think is one of the worst. The standard deviation for carry distance was 7.42 which seemed to be middle of the pack. what happened here?

admittedly i do not have a perfect understanding of standard deviation so if someone could clear this up i would greatly appreciate it!

James

1 year ago

Hey Jason,

Not sure if others have replied but i’ll try to explain. As this test has shown, average offline is not always a good indicator of whats actually happening. If I hit one shot 20 yards right (+20) and another 20 yards left (-20), my average of the 2 will be 0 yards offline ((-20 + 20)/2 = 0). However my standard deviation would be 20, as standard deviation gives us a measure of how far away from the average do you usually hit it. The smaller the standard deviation, the more consistent the numbers being produced. I wont go into the maths of the standard deviation but its basically a measure of consistency.

Jeff

1 year ago

One would think that the robot would minimize this type of variability from left to right? Would the robot miss just as often on both sides of the target? Perhaps the testing team could provide clarity regarding the results?

Dave

1 year ago

I’m sorry, but this data is worthless for most golfers who have an “average” swing speed. I’d be willing to bet that the difference in balls would be much less notable for a guy with a 95 mph swing speed. I’ve played over 30 different brands/models of balls in the past two years and, while there are subtle differences, I don’t see a huge difference in any of them and I’m a low single digit handicap golfer. My swing speed is 95-98 and I don’t see much difference in distance between a Pro V1 or a Wilson Duo, seriously. I think people get too technical about balls and clubs. I shot near par with my old persimmon woods and blades same as I do now with my Callaway Epic driver, titanium fairway metals and Cobra irons.

Russell

1 year ago

My experience was completely different than yours. After seeing the test I switched from the Chrome soft to the Pro V1X. I swing my driver at 87 mph. I went from shooting 89, 96 to 79, 81. Same clubs, same course. All I changed was the ball. I know it is only two rounds and yes the Chrome soft feels better. I’ll take the increase in distance and the lower score. Their test was dead on for my swing speed.

Greg

1 year ago

You don’t shave 10 strokes just from a ball… you had better hits, probably got the club face a bit more square, probably got some putts in sooner… the ball matters yes but I highly doubt you can attribute that much change that quickly to a ball

Russell

1 year ago

Being two clubs closer on every hole helps a lot. We’ll see if the trend continues. Traded all my Chrome softs for Pro V 1x’s today.

Greg

1 year ago

But again, you were two clubs closer not because of a ball… the ball doesn’t magically go 15-20 yards further just by going from one brand to another, it depends on your swing, club face, speed of the greens/grass and if your hitting fairways. I just refuse to believe that a ball change lowered your scores that much. With that being said, congrats man, that’s a helluva score shave

Tony

1 year ago

Dave before you attack the ball results, run your own test. Nobody is saying the test is the end all, be all in ball tests. It’s a starting point. My swing speed is similar to yours Dave. When I saw results for Chrome soft, I decided to run my own tests. After looking at data I decided to test the CS vs the Maxfli tour, a ball by the way I wouldn’t have even considered before seeing data from test. Over several days of testing and hitting 100’s of drives with each ball, I found I was picking up on average an additional 6 yards with the Maxfli tour ball. I found both balls perform similar off irons. Last year I switched from Taylor Made M2 to Callaway Rogue because I picked up an additional 5 yards with Rogue. So I don’t know about you and your game, but to me a half club closer to green with my approach shot is significant. You can play with persimmon and balata balls for all I care – as for me I’ll take all the advantages I can possibly get. The game is hard enough without handicapping myself with poor performing equipment

Bill

12 months ago

The Maxfli brand is now a Dick’s/Golf Galaxy brand. Does anyone know who produces that ball?

Kerry

1 year ago

What a funny consistent item in these comments are the Chrome Soft Balls. I bought into the hype when they came out and I struggled with them. My playing results reflected in the data above. My off target hits and distance improved when I stopped using these balls.

Lies

9 months ago

No, you haven’t shot anywhere near scratch if you think you hit the same distance and get the same performance with all balls and clubs. I am a 10 hcp and I can tell a distinct difference between balls and clubs just because I play and practice a lot.

Dave Richards

1 year ago

I’m sorry, but this data is worthless for most golfers who have an “average” swing speed. I’d be willing to bet that the difference in balls would be much less notable for a guy with a 95 mph swing speed. I’ve played over 30 different brands/models of balls in the past two years and, while there are subtle differences, I don’t see a huge difference in any of them and I’m a low single digit handicap golfer. My swing speed is 95-98 and I don’t see much difference in distance between a Pro V1 or a Wilson Duo, seriously. I think people get too technical about balls and clubs. I shot near par with my old persimmon woods and blades same as I do now with my Callaway Epic driver, titanium fairway metals and Cobra irons.

There’s a Dean Snell video out there you may find interesting. Quality of ball (especially spin) will impact the mid to higher handicaps most. Simple reason. Play around the green. As we miss most of them balls with higher spin check up better. That’s just a fact. Granted sinking the putts is still required to see better scores.

Wes Brown

1 year ago

Thanks for the test information. I like what you did. Now it is up to me to use the results in conjunction with my golf game and fine the best ball for my game. To me, this data is very helpful. Much of the compression/distance information from the manufacturers is very confusing. I agree with the data that compression has very little affect on my shots. I get reasonably similar performance out of different compression balls.

DB

1 year ago

Interesting test. Lots of time spent on it I’m sure, but in the end I don’t think this is a valid test to be basing your golf ball decisions off of. This test is just like any of the Most Wanted results in that they are one-off tests consisting of one sample of one control group. All it does is give you a sample of test data to look at and compare, but it doesn’t follow the “rules” of empirical / laboratory testing that actual important things go by. If you’ve ever read studies on auto equipment (safety equipment especially) or commercial construction materials, or medical devices and pharmaceuticals, you know, things that can save lives or get folks killed, they most certainly don’t rely on one test and call it good. They test, and re-test, and test again, and then deep dive outliers, anomalies and head-scratchers to determine if the results are either substantiated or just a fluke. Then they usually farm it out to an independent test site to back them up just to take out any potential bias, conditional influences or anything else that may be skewing the results. Then when they are satisfied they haven’t missed anything and have a solid understanding of the problem do they publish the results.

The only way all these MGS tests would really carry any weight is if they were to re-do the tests three or four times, using the same equipment, same conditions, same everything, then really dig into the results over multiple test samples to see what reality is. As it stands, these tests are just snapshots of data and don’t really tell the whole story. I said this about one of the putter Most Wanted tests a while back. You take those same putters and golfers and come back tomorrow and run the test again and I’d put a paycheck on it that the results would be different, and perhaps even vastly different. Then come back and do it a third time, and only then would you have a somewhat viable data set to work with. Otherwise all you have is a single recording of what those golfers did on that day with those putters. It certainly isn’t true empirical data in which to base your equipment choices on (unless maybe if you were one of the testers). Same goes for every club in the bag that gets tested head to head… its still just one time, with one control group, its a snapshot, a data set that should be added to multiple data sets to make it actually mean something. Anyone who has taken a college level statistics class or done any sort of real testing should be able to see that. I understand that would take a whole lot more time and resources to accomplish, but without that it just simply doesn’t mean that much.

Back to this ball “test”, the very fact that there are so many discrepancies in what the data shows and what MGS says in its findings proves that this test is not scientific enough to really mean anything. These guys aren’t scientists, or statisticians, and they kinda make up the rules of testing/results as they go along. Do I think there is any bias or behind the scenes pay-offs going on? No, probably not. Do I think these tests are less than useful? Probably. One thing is for certain, I do think these guys have a cool job if they can make a living conducting one-off “tests” of golf equipment, good job there. But if any of you are running out and buying new equipment based on these tests then the only thing they are really accomplishing is getting consumers to go do more consuming. So while they claim to be looking out for the consumer, all they are really doing is bombarding you with yet another form of marketing to further confuse you and cause you to buy, buy, buy in your quest for the perfect golf game. That’s not what golf is about, and what’s in you bag certainly doesn’t equate to what’s on your scorecard. Sure, the clubs need to fit you, and modern equipment seems to be better than stuff from 10 years ago, and the ball is important to a certain degree, but your swing, your decision making/game plan and your mindset/attitude have way more to do with your results than your equipment does. I see guys all the time with $5K worth of equipment turning in triple digit scores, yet I also see guys playing 20 year old clubs that consistently shoot in the 70s. If those guys traded bags for a round do you think the results would be much different? Doubtful.

Again, I’m not knocking the MGS crew for what they’re doing, but there are obvious flaws in these testing methods and the results are anything but certain. The reality is that if you went out tomorrow and built you a bag full of Most Wanted winners you would be hard pressed to drop your handicap by any appreciable amount. Your scorecard is the one data set of which you have multiple, dozens, hundreds of samples, and nothing tells the story of your golf game like your handicap. It doesn’t lie and it doesn’t care what’s in your bag or on your feet, or whatever else you’re trying to do to beat it. But you’ll be back tomorrow to add another sample… maybe with that new ball that MGS said was the best, that’s surely going to work, right?

Nik

1 year ago

Did you skip over the part in all these test that say “GO GET FITTED”? All of these tests have been to give you some data to help you make more informed decisions about the equipment you play or may want to play.

DB

1 year ago

If the bottom line comes down to GO GET FITTED, then what’s the point in any of these tests? You can’t just throw a blanket statement on top of this that somehow validates the test or the results. That’s going down the road of the marketing hype you all claim to hate so much. If you want to go try/buy a bunch of stuff based on a test that is supposedly for the #consumerfirst then go ahead, consume away. The more I think about, I think there is more than a little irony that the consumer label is used here instead of #golfersfirst.

Nik

1 year ago

@DB – I’m gonna go with you selectively choose what you read and want to read. Every golf industry person says to GO GET FITTED, so yeah that’s blanket statement for the industry as a whole not just these tests. Also once again I am going to state that all these test are to give you data to help streamline the choices you make in equipment.

As far as what’s in my bag everything has been fitted and no I’m not one to run out and buy what’s “Most Wanted” or “Hot List”, I look at the data and see if I need to try a product and compare it to what’s in my bag.

Walter

1 year ago

WoW, just Wow. Are you sure there isn’t anything else you’d like to add or criticize MGS for. If you don’t like the data or test or the way they setup the test then don’t use the data. Do your tests then post your results, great idea! Damn, some people.

DB

1 year ago

Walter, my test results wouldn’t be any more beneficial to you as these are. My results for any club or ball I try out would be specific to me. Go look at all of these club test results again and see how little difference there really is in the final data presented. It’s usually within the standard deviation of any club in the test, certainly not different enough to make a decision clear and undeniable. The recent hybrid test results are where I really started doubting this whole concept. Hybrids are to fill a specific yardage gap, consistently and accurately, yet the club that fit that criteria did not win, the longest one did, even with all the rhetoric that overall distance shouldn’t be a factor in selecting a hybrid. Go back and read the comments on that test, folks were shooting holes all over the place, yet it doesn’t seem to matter to anyone. I bet there was a run on hybrids that week though.

But, since you asked, I think the whole #consumerfirst mantra is a little misleading, unless they are talking to the manufacturers and retailers (wink, wink). These “tests” and Most Wanted series sell just as many clubs, balls, gloves, rangefinders, whatevers, as the manufacturer’s own marketing campaigns, and they love every minute of it. How many of you are rocking Most Wanted clubs based on these results, or just new clubs because you got scared that your current driver went 1.7 yards shorter than one from the test? Are you really shooting better scores because of that?
More specifically… how many of you got an email today with a “special” deal on the back-to-back Most Wanted putter winner? Or what about the “special” offer on the Tour Exotics Most Wanted fairway deal from a while back? If you think this is just a #consumerfirst deal for all you special folks out there, then I don’t know what to tell you. Its a great sales strategy for sure, but I don’t think anyone is being “saved” from wasting your money on clubs that may or may not work for you based on test results that had nothing to do with you. When I read a comparison of a group of cars from something like Car and Driver or whatever car website I don’t see any links or get any emails about how I can get a “special” deal on one of those cars.

In fact, I take back my comment above where I said I didn’t think there was any behind the scenes pay-offs going on here. The whole concept just doesn’t smell right the more I think about it. I get it, some of you have bought into these tests as the new gospel in how to select golf equipment, and no one wants to admit they just bought a set of encyclopedias from a door-to-door salesman, but come on, you have to see what I’m saying here. You may not like it but you can’t deny there is more going on here than just some good intentioned testing.

If MGS has an issue with anything I’m saying here then I’d love to discuss it. Maybe you can sway me to see things your way. But in the end, I’m just trying to help them uphold their #consumerfirst stance by pointing out the fact that none of these results really amount to anything more than moving product for the #golfmanufacturerfirst movement.

Walter, you seem especially disturbed by my point of view. Perhaps your Most Wanted $550 driver isn’t working out quite like you had hoped it would. You didn’t happen to take advantage of any of those “special” offers recently, did you?
Some people, indeed.

MyGolfSpy

1 year ago

So, we help find the best performing clubs and then help consumers get them at the best prices.

Sounds exactly like the job we set out to do for golfers 10 years ago.

Walter

1 year ago

Well as a matter of fact I have never bought any item(whoops, one) that MGS has ever stated as the “best”. No $550 driver, I actually own a couple of Tour Edge Exotics Drivers, neither have been reviewed by MGS, as well as various 3wds and hybrids from Tour Edge Exotics that have never been reviewed by MGS. Actually I’m going to try out a Wishon driver this summer, only because I’ve been talking with Tom for years and decided to try it. Same goes for my irons/shafts, nippon shafts with Maltby forged heads. My bag has only one item that has appeared on this website, a ping putter and the Z Star which I’ve used for years.

Like I said, if you don’t like what they are doing on this website don’t visit the website, unsubscribe to their email alerts. DO NOT PUNISH YOURSELF, LOL, life is too short.

Tony

1 year ago

Wow just wow—all I can say. DB says “All it does is give you a sample of test data to look at and compare” Exactly consider before this test it was like a state secret how one golf ball compared to one another. We had almost no comprehensive data at all. Me thinks thou does protest too much DB, guessing you don’t like the results so you choose to attack the entire ground breaking test. For myself, I choose to test the Maxfli tour against my former gamer chrome soft. After 100’s of drives, I find on average the Maxfli tour is about 6 yards longer off the driver than the Chrome soft- guess what that’s exactly what the test predicts for my swing speed. Not only did I get a better ball, 2 boxes for 50 bucks is much less expensive than the Chrome Soft I was playing. DB instead of attacking the results why not go out and run your own tests

Couldn’t agree more. I put the Maxfli Tour CG in play some weeks ago after getting a MGS email. Weather has been sketchy but I’ve got 8 rounds in with them. My new ball period. How well the CG alignment works I can’t quite say. I’ve been straighter but is it the ball or am I mentally more focused using it? Beats me. I just know my misses are better. Why you’d drop coin on Pro V1’s after trying them head to head escapes me. Picked up a dozen green matte also and I must say they glow nicely. Find them easy to locate.

Tim

1 year ago

whats interesting about the chromesoft is the 7 iron data…..it seems to outperform the TP5’s and the Bridgestones by quite a big margin….the test doesn’t support a “slow ball is a slow ball” theory when you really break it down

Greg

1 year ago

Exactly, most of the comments that they make in the article factor to those with high swing speed, and using the driver data. When you take a deep dive, you can basically make an argument for any ball. I don’t even have a driver, I use a 3wood and hybrid, and my swing speed is in the 90-100 range, so I focus on the slow speed or the combo speed and kind of extrapolate my own info, CS, CSX, Vice pro, q star tour, Vice pro soft, AVX, tour soft, all of these are solid options for me with my skill set and what I’m looking for (accuracy over distance, but as far as I can get)

Greg

1 year ago

The more I read this the more I realize that all of these balls are pretty close. I look at 7iron and 100mph swing because that’s my game, and heck the q star tour is a solid option. This helped me narrow down my choice of balls to try out for sure

Greg P

10 months ago

I agree. Particularly at lower swing speed, the differences are minimal. When you factor in the variance of quality of strike (real world) the results seem to indicate that there are some very good balls out there.
It still is important to test it your self, play it, and decide which is better for your game.

Christopher

1 year ago

Srixon Z Star Yellow vs White

Looking at all the graphs, the yellow vs white are measurably different. I see several folks refer to the differences – but I’m curious if anyone has any real reason for the difference. On the Srixon web page – it looks like they are the same ball – I can’t understand why they would be different on everything from wedge spin to compression w the driver.

Walter

1 year ago

MGS already stated they were a little confused as to why the white and yellow version varied so much. They also stated they would need to look into this some more. Damn some people just need to read, lol.

DB

It’s not the ball color, its the testing method Walter.
Or maybe the robot just doesn’t like yellow golf balls.
You see how silly this whole thing is now?

Walter

1 year ago

Really, it’s just SO SILLY. Yes you’re right, iRobot just doesn’t like the colour yellow so it made it fly worse than it’s brother, the white guy.

I suggest you stop smoking whatever it is you’re smoking and find another site to bash.

Nik

1 year ago

If look at the article with Dean Snell and what Titleist said when they made their yellow ball they both said that to make a yellow urethane was difficult to do correctly. I am guessing maybe due to the change in formula for the yellow cover that may have lead to more variances in ball.

This was an interesting study. BUT, all your other testing was done with Golfers. Golfers hit golf balls and their swings are all different, things like angle of attack, face angle to path, path to target, etc. I am sure ball manufacturers use robots to develop and test their products, but the real test is what happens when the golfer hits the golf ball. So why was this the only study that did not involve real golfers hitting these balls and collecting the data. IMHO there are two many variables to do a test like this with real golf clubs and golfers. Different club designs including CG position, face flex, etc. So what I took from this article is to go get fit for a golf ball that fits my swing with the equipment I am using and see what the real results are for me personally. Otherwise, I have no clue which ball is best for ME based on robots hitting balls.

Walter

1 year ago

John, you’re missing the whole technical point of using a robot. It insures that each ball is hit the exact same way every time. Doing it this way takes the human variable out of the equation which gives the most accurate end data of what each ball does. The data set is up to each individual reader at access which ball they think has the data they like or feel is best in their mind. Yes of course go get fit for a ball. But starting out with a ball that goes perfectly straight etc. when struck perfectly by the club face takes another variable out of your golf game, don’t you think.

DB

1 year ago

If this test was really all about data and its up to the end user to determine what factors are important to them, then why even pick a winner, or multiple winners in this case? If its just raw data, then let it be that, no need to call one a winner since none of us will ever hit it anywhere close to the consistency the robot does.

One good take-away, I’ll bet you’ll be getting an invitation to take advantage of a screaming deal on a couple dozen Snells in the next few days. Don’t you worry, the email is coming.

Michael

1 year ago

The general interpretation that MGS seems to have made is that low compression balls are a detriment to performance, even for the 85 mph SS. They data shows they produce less ball speed and don’t spin as much, so I can appreciate that. This does not equate to less distance through the bag though. The low compression balls launch higher and carry longer with the irons. This may be more of what that lower SS speed group appreciates. It would be interesting if the gap gets greater with a 5 iron/ 5 hybrid. Would the lower launch, higher spin and compression balls create more carry problems? While not as much as the high compression balls, these balls still produce good greenside spin. They also don’t have the harsh sound and feel on mishits that a harder compression ball has. Just some thoughts as to why other than just feel, this category of balls has become popular.

Ruben Acosta

12 months ago

I didn’t understand that blanket statement about low compression balls are slow balls either. I remember using Wilson Duos and then switching to Topfilte Gamer Tours for the urethane cover. In both those cases my friends and I did realize driving distance gains. But you’re never going to get huge driving distance gains in swing speeds in the low 90s. Here they actually disprove that low speed stuff with greater distances in the longer irons. I also was surprised by the missing Topflite Gamers in the testing but these guys are no different from Golf and Golf Digest in that respect. They also forgot zbout them. Seems to me they could eliminated the Cut Blues or Greens since their q5 was so poor and results followed.

In nearly 10 years of testing, the notion that soft is slow is the most definitive thing we’ve ever encountered. It is not in dispute. It’s almost amusing that so many have pushed back as if there’s some chance we could be wrong, where the quiet response from the ball guys we’ve spoken with as well as others in the industry who have tested balls is the equivalent of “Thanks, Captain Obvious”.

The correlation between compression and ball speed is absolute and everyone who makes a golf ball, even if they won’t admit it, knows it.

Having said that, it absolutely is exponential in that higher swing speed golfers will notice more of a difference. The larger issue as I see it is that soft is almost invariably low spin. If you’re looking for shop shape correction, the low spin properties can be beneficial off the tee. However, the overwhelming majority of golfers we see, particularly low speed golfers have trouble launching the ball high, and generate too little spin on approach and wedge shots. So within the bigger picture, it’s not purely the distance loss that’s problematic. Every ball brings with it some sort of compromise. The Tour BX, for example is fast, but it doesn’t spin as much around the greens as some other top balls. The Volvik spins like nothing else on wedge shots, but also spins off the driver. With low compression balls, there are very few ‘buts’ and too many ‘ands’. They’re slow off the tee AND they they don’t spin off irons AND they don’t spin off wedges.

The ball guys who aren’t wholly invested in selling you a feel-based product have been honest about this. Low Compression balls are for guys who need shot shape correction and for high speed, high spin players. For everyone else, there are better options.

donn

1 year ago

what color is best for finding balls in thick rough??? yellow, red, orange, pink???

Nik

1 year ago

Is it just me or did I take the information MGS supplied in this test as more or less a benchmark so each person has real data to help them find a golf ball for their individual swing? Yes the robot takes out swing variables so we have as close to apples to apples data as possible, however each individual golfer has unique swing characteristics and variables play a big part. Pretty sure MGS has always said “GO GET FITTED”, same with the fella’s at TXG and anyone who is interested in helping your individual game. Also I took this data and basically most of the testing the MGS crew does to help me narrow down my choices based on my swing speed, swing characteristics and how I spin a ball or not spin a ball. I routinely compare the finding of MGS with other industry peers such as TXG to get a more rounded opinion of products so I can make informed choices on equipment more streamlined.

Lastly a big Thank you to the MGS crew for trying to help all of us become more informed about what is being put out into the market, giving us data to ultimately make more informed decisions and for giving us average joe’s a place to voice our concerns and questions about what product is out in the market.

Matt D

1 year ago

Can you explain why majority of the golf balls ended up left or target with the driver to all of them being right of target for the 7 iron then more equally spread out near zero for wedges?

Was this dispersion due to wind? Is the driver more left biased? Is the 7 iron more right biased? Were the face angles of the clubs checked between shots to make sure that they stayed as consistent as possible?

Tim Secor

1 year ago

Played 18 with the BXS today and i think it spins too much off the driver for me. A few of them ballooned. Its weird but i have high spin off the driver but im a low spin player with my irons. I also think the bsx may be a bit “soft” for me. Im gonna try to bx now. But i will say when i “hit it right, the ball flew.

DTown3011

Tony

1 year ago

This test is bogus, if TXG wanted apples to apples comparison they should have tested outside. Their trackman numbers were similar to MGS, what they did NOT duplicate was the outside conditions, if you look at the numbers on the CSX- not only was it slower than the Snell, it did not get any height in outside testing and that’s why its carry total sucked. Look for Callaway to come to come out with several of these tests to ‘disprove” MGS. The fact Callaway tour pro’s won’t play the off the shelve Callaway ball tells you everything you need to know. If you are playing Callaway soft balls you are giving up massive distance off the tee and victim of Callaway marketing and/or brand loyalty. Callaway needs to step up to the plate and give consumers a ball that performs up to today’s standards

It’s kind of a shame that the previous commenter has the same name, but I swear I’m not posting twice. I’m not going to throw rocks at TXG because ultimately I respect what they do. Their stuff is generally top-tier. The fact is that their setup couldn’t have been much more different from ours. Any reasonable person would expect a different result. Anybody with knowledge of testing (specifically ball testing) and basic critical thinking skills should be able to understand as much.

We tested with a robot Why? Because it ensures consistent contact from swing to swing. A golf ball is round. Short of laying the blade into the upper half, you don’t hit it the ball off-center. Anything else that happens…high face, low face, heel, toe, the force is applied proportionally and will impact every golf ball mostly the same.

Not to get sidetracked – all of a sudden, the forgiveness benefits of low compression balls are being promoted largely because they lose less speed when you miss the sweet spot. This is true, but it’s mostly a clever use of math meant to confuse golfers. Consider this scenario: Your ball speed is 150 with a high compression ball and 148 with a lower compression ball. An off-center club strike costs you 5% of ball speed. With the high compression ball you’re now at 142.5 having lost 7.5 mph. At 148, that same 5% only costs you 7.4 mph. YOU’VE SAVED BALL SPEED (.1 mph in this scenario – because of the softer ball). Granted, you’re still almost 2 mph slower, but you’ve lost less speed – you’re a tick closer than you were before. Now, it is true that because of the low spin properties of soft balls, the relationship is not exactly 1:1, but according to one golf ball expert I spoke with about “forgiveness”, soft balls do retain ever-so-slightly more speed, but not to any degree that he would feel comfortable telling golfers that a soft ball is more forgiving.

Back on topic…we tested with a robot, outdoors, full flight. Why? Because it’s what every expert we talked to (+/- half a dozen over the last 5 years) told us was the right way to do it. It’s almost certainly the methodology any ball company would have recommended before the test. The full flight aspect is critically important for ball testing as dimple design can have a significant impact on downrange performance (the number we’ve been given is “up to 8 yards” due to dimples alone). Again, this is what everybody in the ball industry knows (just like everyone in the ball industry already knew that softer is slower). It’s exactly why, despite having the means to do an indoor ball test for the last 5 years, we waited until we could use what the industry says are the right tools.

Everything else other Tony said is true. The overwhelming majority of Callaway PGA tour pros have never played the retail ball. Callaway has had AT LEAST 2 players that I know of break contract to play a competitor’s ball. Two members of Callaway’s ball team confirmed that fact for me during the Epic Flash launch event. It’s also true that the new CSX Triple Track is a different golf ball. It’s not the same as the CSX white, CSX Truvis, etc.. While Callaway hasn’t hidden that fact it changed the CSX, it hasn’t exactly shouted it from the rooftops. The CSX TT wasn’t available at the time we tested, but sources have told us that it’s ~7% higher compression. I don’t know it for a fact, but I’m also told it’s the ball that the majority of Callaway’s Tour Players use.

Point being, while the benefits of soft are being promoted on one side, on the other the balls are already starting to get firmer.

Walter

1 year ago

Tony C., for your distance and dispersion numbers did you use only the Trackman data or did you also use actual tape measurements as well just to verify the data, especially on the really wayward ones.
For me I think the dispersion numbers are just as important as the distance but it seems most everyone feels that distance is the most important number for ball performance.
Great job on the test

Zooter9

1 year ago

See above. Tony: I was also wondering if you actually had individuals down range measuring the carry distance and distance offline rather than trackman data. And have you tested the effect of dimple configurations on driver carry.

jlukes

1 year ago

Tony C – you are absolutely right, and even Ian at TXG said there had to be more to the story than compression alone. He alluded to aerodynamics being the culprit.

Sean O

1 year ago

Great article. Any reason didnt test the Top Flite Urethane cover ball? 3 piece urethane that usually tests well from other sites/companies

KC

1 year ago

Good question! This was my gamer last year and it’s a great ball for the prices you can get them at times (on par price-wise with the KSigs). Still can’t believe Project A was excluded but Inesis was in there. Makes me scratch my head about “unbiased” testing…

Amazing what some people decides implies bias. Honest answer is we overlooked it. Totally my bad actually. When we were making our list, I missed it. It’s that simple.

Walter

1 year ago

Tony C., hey we all mistakes as we’re all human. Pick it up next year and make these guys happy knowing their 50cent balls aren’t that great after all.

Greg

1 year ago

Or maybe it’ll prove that $45 for a dozen isn’t really changing your game as much as you thought

Tim Secor

1 year ago

You guys know you are going to have to do this test every year now, right?? we cannot have new balls released each year without this test completed. You guys have changed the industry standard of testing. Awesome job

Andrew

1 year ago

That manufacturing problems can lead to wildly offline shots is probably the most important conclusion here.

I’m wondering how many individual balls from each of the manufacturers were tested? From the video, it seems possible it was only one. Of course, if one randomly selected ball from Brand X performs inconsistently, then that’s valuable data about manufacturing tolerances. And if the ball randomly selected for Brand Y performed relatively consistently, this suggests that Brand Y might have tighter manufacturing tolerances.

But it is possible that from ball to ball, Brand Y actually has much more variability than Brand X. It just happened that, by chance, you selected a relatively good ball from Brand Y and a relatively bad ball from Brand X.

So, I would love to see follow-up test on a subset of brands in which you examine, say, a dozen balls from each brand and get a measure of ball-to-ball consistency.

Jimmy

1 year ago

Titleist has the best consistency. I’ve been playing Chrome Soft X because I loved the American flag Truvis design but I’ll probably go back to Pro V1x when they’re gone. Pro V1x has been consistently better than the regular Pro V1 that they keep updating it to make it more and more like the x.

I loved the Chrome Soft and just tried the new ProV1x and I am probably going to stick with them and send the Chrome Soft to my son.

Art

1 year ago

400+ comments and I haven’t seen this question yet–If just about any golf ball out there is going to fly off line 10 or more yards every one-out-of-three shots, how can ANY club test be trusted? How can ANY club fitting be meaningful? Your club fitter could easily be selling you the worst club for you. That putter you bought because it won first place in a test–what if the golf balls were the reason it won top spot? And this knowledge on ball quality isn’t new. Been around for decades. Kudos and thank you to MGS for bringing it back to the forefront.

Sandy Par

1 year ago

Thanks MGS. I’m donating. And I’m also carefully parsing the data you provide from the perspective of low swing speed. I’m a Senior Woman with a high single digit handicap and my swing speed with the Driver is around 75 MPH which is pretty normal for my demographic. I think the More Senior Men crowd is pretty close to that swing speed too. However, the vast majority of woman golfers are probably swinging between 60 and 75 MPH. It would be great if you could add a 70 MPH category the next time you test for those of us who don’t even come close to your lowest swing speed setting – 85 MPH. Thanks and keep up the good work.

David Fayad

Sean

Kevin

1 year ago

The MTB-X was great. I watched my great friend Matthew who is a 6 handicap smash this ball around the course all day. His control around the green was amazing and he putted lights out with it. End of the day he fired a 1 under 69. Best rd in 3 years. Dean is onto something. Get onboard now boys and girls! Thanks MGS for everything. It was great to see Matt happy again after suffering from depression due to distance loss and spin control.

Max R.

1 year ago

I was thinking of buying the Snell MBX and went to their site to see what the great discounts there are for the ball here in Canada AND here’s their “deal”. Buy a 2-pack…costs $44.99 each. Buy a 4 or 5-pack…costs $42.99 each. Wow! What a deal!!! Not really. I can buy 4 dozen for the price of 3 TP5 for $180. Virtually the same price. BTW, Snell are all sold out.

Nick

Er…it’s not virtually the same price. You’re getting 4 dozen golf balls vs. 3 dozen if what you wrote is correct. You just saved $1.25 a ball which is significant.

PaulS

1 year ago

Great test and some surprising (to me) results. Anybody want to buy some Chrome Soft’s on the cheap?

I apologize if this has been addressed, but I did a search that revealed nothing. Is there any chance you will be testing the $20 – $30 balls for those of us who are just too cheap to the price of these top tier balls? Yes, I know you included the Costco and Snell but there are a lot of others sold and it sure would be nice to see a comparison. Thanks for the testing.

Alex

1 year ago

After reading this, I picked up 2 dozen of Maxfli tours from Dick’s. My swing speed is about 90mph, and I normally play the 2016 ProjectA and previous generation QstarTour. Played yesterday, and the ball speed of Maxfli Tour is much faster, and I was at hitting it at least 10 yds further.. I am a fairly straight hitter, so I didn’t pay much attention to the line, although I did put the line on top. For the price point, a great ball (Pro V1X and ProV1s are great balls, but I am more likely to play those I find, rather than pay the ProV1 prices). Thanks for the good work!

SV677

1 year ago

I second the request, but would also add a request. Please use a more reasonable swing speed. I have never been able to swing close to 115 mph and even though I’m old I am not down to 85 yet either. Something in the 90-95 mph would be nice.

Andrew

1 year ago

This was addressed in the article- it’s a pretty linear relationship.

Max

1 year ago

if, on the sorting charts above, you click both 85 mph ss and 115 mph ss, the data presented is an average bof both sets, or what would be a 100 mph ss, assuming the data is linear, which is what they suggest.

Jerome

1 year ago

First of all thanks for this great article and source of info. Analysising the data a bit further for my SS ~107 and need of low spin, close dispersion and low offline (for driver, 7 iron and wedge), the Vice Pro arrived on top by a big margin!
Just curious if more of you came to a ball choice result not falling into the excellent nor very good category?

Harold Hawkins

1 year ago

Great article and test but next year you have to do this earlier before all the buy three dozen get one dozen deals are over. I bought Pro V1s which seem like a safe bet but now I feel like I should have tried the Bridgestone Tour B X first or gone with Pro V1X.

David

1 year ago

Great work.
Now we need some updates during the season to check wether ball performances remain the same or if we get different production batches with lower or at least very different performances…
A bit like in electronics when a giant had early production batches with premium parts and other production batches had much lower quality parts when the ref was exactly the same.
Or written differently: fool reviews and consumers !

Ram S.

1 year ago

Fantastic article and great dataviz. One question is when you say
“While more layers can lead to more nuanced performance, it doesn’t matter how many layers your ball has. If the ball does what you need it to do, do waste your time and energy counting layers. ”

Did you instead mean “don’t waste your time”? I thought “do” was a typo but wasn’t sure.

Walter

1 year ago

Well I guess it didn’t take long for Callaway to get their feathers ruffled by this test as they already posted a statement basically saying this testing and it’s data is flawed to the nTH degree and their balls are still BIG, lol. I suppose it was to be expected considering the data and comments from the MGS guys, great work guys.

Bill

Humza

Art

1 year ago

Humza, thanks for the link. Interestingly, if you go start by going to the online Callaway Press Center rather than follow your link, this doesn’t show up in the press release section. I scoured the press center and couldn’t find it anywhere. Did they retract this?

Walter

1 year ago

Hmmm, I did post it but I guess it got deleted or something.

Steve

Steven

1 year ago

Having read and reread MGS’s ball test several times and then the link to Callaway’s response twice, I’ve am wondering if challenging the use of mechanical hitting is easier than trying to argue the ball design and it’s characteristics, especially MGS’s article also talks about how balls have inherent flaws. It may be that they don’t have a stricter quality control. Added side note is that I was using chrome soft,then switched to a soft Bridgestone. And now since reading the test, I’ve gone to testing other balls.

Doug

Ken

1 year ago

Callaway should publish numerical data rather than words that support their position.

Matt Italia

1 year ago

Awesome work MGS team—this is absolutely disruptive. Thanks.

I just want to understand why there is not so much hype around the Srixon Z-Star golf ball. It is among the top balls for carry distance (even despite its relatively low compression), it has incredible dispersion numbers, and its standard deviations are also very low. Having said that, how can we consider MTB-X the best value ball? What is not being paid for in monetary costs for the MTB-X is being paid for in tremendous inconsistency, namely in standard deviation of spin axis and stdev of offline. Needless to say it has a ‘shot area’ of 1494, compared to the 154 by Srixon Z-Star. I can understand some of that dispersion being due to the 5.52 standard deviation of carry distance, which would be justified and very tolerable given it is a unanimous leader in the distance category. In other words, the benefits would greatly outweigh the costs if this was the only large deviation. However, with MTB-X’s standard deviation of offline being 21.52 and that of 21.52 and that of of its spin axis being 5.43, all in all it seems to me that the costs of playing the Snell MTB-X are far greater than the benefits.

If we look at the Srixon Z-Star in comparison, at about a premium of $10 per dozen you are getting a tremendously consistent, high-quality ball. In my humble opinion, the reward-to-risk characteristics of the Z-Star prove it to be the best value ball of all those tested. Just have a look at simple ratios like average-carry-to-stdev-carry or average-carry-to-shot-area and compare the Z-Star to many of the balls here… It is the king go the hill. The most worrisome statistic for the Srixon Z-Star has to be the 3.25 standard deviation in the 85-yards wedge shot, which is towards the bottom of the pack.

Walter

1 year ago

Matt, I would agree that the ZStar maybe earned it’s “excellent” rating by MGS, but the data that has me puzzled is the 7i offline data, not exactly great compared to others. Actually I think the ZStar XV has better data with the exception of the fast driver offline data, which just seems odd that it would be that much offline for the fast but not for the slow. It seems the XV was good enough for one of the MGS crew(Sam) as it’s the ball he uses.

Ian

1 year ago

I don’t have a driver swing speed of 115, but i am consistently over 105, usually 108 or 109. But i also have high spin with the driver: usually in the 3,200 range. I also launch it above optimal levels. Of course, that has to do with my swing. However, the article says the soft balls are slower and low spin. Given my spin rate and launch angle, im already losing distance. Could there be something gained by switching to a softer ball?

Jimmy

1 year ago

My numbers are close to yours (100-102 on the driver). I played the AVX for a while last year. Compression is overrated; the mantle and dimple design matter a lot more. The AVX is basically a Pro V1 with shallower dimples. I’m a high flight/high spin player with all clubs. AVX took down my peak height and spin with the driver and every other club. 10+ yards longer with driver and half a club longer on the irons and I reckon every last bit of it is just due to a less spinny cover.

I ended up moving on to the Chrome Soft X because I couldn’t live with the wedge spin, particularly in half shots around the green. Going all the way back to the Titleist Professional, my game was built in bring able to get one hop and a hard grab from a 60 degree pitch and it was just too hard to adjust so I gave back the distance to get back the short game behavior I need.

I try lots of balls but almost always end up back on the Pro V1x. I’ve been playing Chrome Soft X lately and notice very little difference from Pro V1x. This test for me interested to get out on an empty course and bang out six drives with each one and see where they land/whether the Chrome Soft X really is shorter. I suspect their results are fishy because in March I played the same course on back to back days when these respective balls and hit mostly the same clubs for second shots both days.

vast123

Art

1 year ago

Hey Vast, would you do us all a favor? Count up the large number of other golf you didn’t see in the test. You may want to use the internet to figure that out. And while you are out there in the expansive WWW, maybe include where each of those golf balls is sold (not just the US, the readership here is geographically huge) , and if they are currently available. Thanks for your contribution!

Mike

1 year ago

A very sarcastic, unnecessary response. How long did it take you to think that up & put into words? Realize they can’t test “all” balls but you could ask why not the Project A, a 3-piece balls w/ a urethene cover, but yes to the ERC?

Art

1 year ago

Mike, guilty as charged. And here is an excerpt from the article that neither you nor Vast picked up, it seems–“In the interest of being as thorough as possible, we tested 33 balls with urethane covers. While some models are positioned at the fringe of the category, the goal was to include a majority of 3, 4, and 5-piece balls generally classified as Tour Balls. Out of curiosity, we also tested a yellow version of the Srixon ZStar, as well as two premium ionomer/surlyn covered balls (Callaway ERC Soft and Titleist Tour Soft) positioned to compete with premium urethane balls.”

“Curious” enough to ask if one particular ball is sold in the US, but not curious enough to read the article, or look up Project-a in a search engine his damn self? Sarcasm earned.

SNP

1 year ago

Very intriguing article and information. Bottom line is you need to do you own testing to find out what works for you. I am in the middle of the ball testing process right now. I am a competitive scratch player with just over 100 mph driver club speed. With that said, in real world testing where angle of attack, quality of contact and other human factors come into play, the results may or may not match up to the test data. What would the data look like if the robot were set up to hit an eight yard fade instead of a draw? I recently tried the new MTB-X and felt as if they were going nowhere; more personal testing required I guess. Vice Pro was a good fit for me and I have several others that I have yet to test but am looking forward to the process. My take away is, if you can afford urethane by all means do so. If you cannot or will not spend $25+ bucks per dozen then you might as play. whatever you can get your hands on. Bottom line is, if you have some game, you can break 80 with almost any clubs and any golf ball. But it takes a ton of work, testing, fitting and experimentation to get your equipment (ball & clubs) dialed in so you can maximize your potential. Unless you have the motivation and time to do so, you might as well save some money, buy last years sticks off the shelf and pick up a double dozen of whatever is on sale on your way out the door.

SNP your post in my opinion is undoubtedly the most sensible one here and I’ve been reading posts in this thread for about a hour now. You pretty much nailed it, the way I see it. I realize that opinions are like A holes, everyone has one, but I thought this was a good way to show appreciation for some good common sense.

ole gray

Tony

1 year ago

So Tony, can you explain why the carry distance for the Snell MTB was so much lower than other balls with the same or higher ball speeds? Just surprised to see it carry 2-5 yards less than other balls with same or similar launch spin and ball speed averages. Any thoughts on this? Looks like a great ball for me in all numbers except carry distance. Dimple design maybe? Manufacturing?

Johnny S

1 year ago

About two weeks ago my wife and I spent the day at my local course testing golf balls, several of which are mentioned in this test. Started at the green and worked back to tee box. All balls performed about the same for me 100 yards in. Upwind, downwind, crosswind, balls were hit on different holes. I had nine different balls to test, nine sleeves of three each.

I didn’t have a way to measure carry only total distance using a laser range finder. After hitting each sleeve of balls several times from various tee boxes, I examined the results (I didn’t look at them along the way in order to maintain a sense of fairness to the ball). All balls were within 10-12 yards apart in total distance. The only ball hit clearly down the middle of the fairway on every shot was the Wilson Duo Professional. I have played two rounds using the Wilson Duo Pro, matte yellow, and drove the middle of the fairway on each hole. Didn’t lose a shot in the sky either, love the matte yellow color.

MGS is great. I don’t buy anything in golf without checking MGS first. They are right, get fitted for your ball or at least test several brands on your course. For me, unless something changes, its Wilson Duo Professional, matte yellow.

Steven C

1 year ago

I used to play the ZStar, but tried a couple of other balls last year. I am going back to them and just ordered a few boxes of the new ZStar. They are a great ball and if you buy 3 and get 1 free they are about the same price as the Snell MBT-X

John

JOey

1 year ago

I’ve started one by hand already. Just a little excel spreadsheet that calculates the linear equation for each ball and then i have a separate table that calculates new values based on the linear equation for whatever club head speed you want. S far I’ve only done the driver for like 8 balls or so that i’d be interested in. Not difficult, just a little time consuming.

Sandy Par

1 year ago

Joey – I see in a subsequent post you analyzed Driver data and charted the linear equation between 115 and 85 mph swing speeds and extrapolated that for a lower swing speed of 65 mph for junior golfers. This would would apply to women and more senior men golfers as well. Thanks for sharing your findings. If you do that for 65 mph swing and the 7 iron and Wedge, please share it here. Thanks in advance. Hopefully MGS will include a 65 or 70 mph category in next year’s testing.

Joey

Balls that i did driver data for are, V1 and V1x, Tp5 and TP5x, Bridgestone BX, B RXS and B XS, Z star and z star xv, volvik s4, erc soft, MTB-X,and K-sig 3 piece.
For 65 mph, the V1x had the longest at 156, B XS at 154, tp5 at 153. MTB-x and K sig were at 145 or below. difference of 12.40 yards between longest and shortest.

Bart

1 year ago

I couldn’t find where you stated how many shots you did for each ball. For example, how many shots did the robot take with a driver at 115 mph using Pro-V1s? Was it the same number for every brand and model?

Jonathan Foster

1 year ago

You guys have done it again, great article, this is something that can benefit the consumer. I think this test will set the golf ball industry on a new path. The biggest shock to me was how poorly the #2 market ball Callaway performed. I am sure it will not sit well with the Company.

You confirmed my suspicions about Bridgestone and Titleist as they make high-quality golf balls that perform very well compounded by the fact that they control the manufacturing process from start to finish. Thereby creating a more consistent product which makes me disappointed in Snell, but this is a result you get with a small company which operates by a direct to consumer.

I am now trying to decide between the Tour B XS and Pro-V1x, both great balls either way. I feel based on your results that the B XS perform better tee to green. What caught my eye was that the Tour B XS seemed to have a smaller offline number and the shot area was significantly low.

I am looking forward to what you guys will do in the future. Again, Great Work!

Walter

1 year ago

Tony, Considering most people go to the driving range to practice and aren’t practicing with their game ball for obvious reasons, it would have been interesting to show your viewers just exactly what they can expect from the range balls at their local driving range. Everyone has had that moment (or lots of those moments) where they hit a ball and say WTF. People are honing their swings with those sh!t balls. Perhaps next ball test you guys can include some typical range balls from a few manufacturers. What do you think?

Guanto

1 year ago

Hopefully the taylormade project a will be included next time. Quite a popular urethane ball and would have been great to see the differences between the Project A, q star tour, and the tp5. Overall a decent test.

Kevin

1 year ago

How would one apply this study to Junior golfers. I know you all wrote “A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee (unless you swing under 85 MPH) and spin around the green” but is there any way we can apply this to competitive Jr. Golfers with swing speeds in the 60-75 range?

Reading some other forums I read a lot about the Wilson Duo Urethane, but based on the data above from the 85 115mph range they had a performance rating of fair.
Thank you in advance for your comments

JWB

Kevin

1 year ago

I agree that’s the problem. The data is great for adult players but not all that usable for Junior golfers with swing speeds below 85 mph. It would have been amazing if they would have added a 65 mph swing speed to the test. That would have covered the competitive junior up…

Juniors are the future of golf so I wish they would not be excluded in these tests. That said I get it from a business perspective.

I also find it hard to believe that Juniors under 10 should be playing Pro-V1r pro v1x…?

Joey

1 year ago

i wrote an excel spreadsheet to interpret the data for any given swing, and at swing speed of 65 mph, the higher compression balls still out perform in terms of carry. In fact, the Pro V1x, Tour B XS, TP5, and Tour B RXS seemed to perform well. Pro V1x has the longest carry out of those.

Mike Nickel

1 year ago

So I seen Snell MTB-X is backordered. I wonder if all those people that picked the longest ball on a driver, (Only 14 shots a round) realized that’s it’s one of the shortest balls off the irons and wedges.

Dave

Driver-Wedge the MTB-X is less than 1 yd shorter than the best (Maxfli Tour). MTB-X ranks 3rd.

Driver-7i-Wedge (like on a par 5) the MTB-Xis about 4.5 yds shorter than the best (Tour B RX again). MTB-X ranks 8th.

So for $7 (vs Maxfli Tour) or $17 (vs Tour B RX) per box savings you are losing less than 1% of distance over the course of a hole. In all those cases you are probably still pulling the same club for the approach, not having to take an extra club (maybe 1/2 a club extra on the par 5). I think that is a tradeoff a lot of people are willing to make.

For the record that balls that were longer than the MTB-X on one or more of these combinations were Tour B RX, Tour B RXS, Tour B X, ERC Soft, Maxfli Tour, Q-Star Tour, and Pro V1x.

Bret

1 year ago

It’s probably shorter on irons and wedges due to it’s higher spin. In other words, it will hold the green better. If you want a long ball for the irons then hit an old Top Flite. Good luck stopping it on the green, however.

Humza

1 year ago

I think more important than second shot distance are the shot area and offline standard deviation numbers for driver and 7 iron. The MBT-X is either worst or in the bottom half for all these metrics. For a ball which has performed so well otherwise, such poor accuracy seems like a worrying anomaly.

Walter

Andre

Julian

1 year ago

Unless I missed the answer somewhere, Do balls have a “best before date” ? I always have balls from prior years I understand new models of balls come out, but there the same balls year after year, and old stock in stores.

marc

Walter

1 year ago

MGS, just listened to your YouTube chat, very interesting and thanks for the article. Would have been nice had you guys answered some of the questions posted on the chat side of the UTube stream.
When asked which ball each of you would choose I’m surprised neither of you choose a ProV ball and I’m really surprised 2 of you chose the Tour B X, although looking at the data I suppose not. One of you went with the MTBX, why? with his swingspeed does he enjoy going into the bush off his tee shot considering the MTBX had the worst driver dispersion

Bobby

Walter

1 year ago

Bobby, if you look at the raw data under std dev, it shows the MTBX is 21.52, which is the worst in that column. You are looking at the average data, which makes it look a little better. Now that said, Bob(the scientist) who post a comment on here says his robot tests didn’t show the bad numbers for the MTBX that MGS’s numbers show. Why, I don’t know.

I hadn’t considered a Maxfli ball in ages. Then a year or so ago Golfworks had a discontinued urethane cover at stupid price. $10 to $12 a dozen as I recall. Surprised by the performance and durability to say the least.

A few weeks ago I get an email from MGS on the new Maxfli Tour. Two rounds in I’m sold. Being able to run into Dick’s and grab 2 boxes for $53 is a huge plus. Simply put I think Dick’s has a winner at almost half the price when on sale. From what I could see they’re flying off the shelves.

Jim Nantz

1 year ago

Yea, I am surprised the Maxfli Tours aren’t getting more love. They tested great, aside from maybe dispersion, yet they have the CG technology to hopefully offset that. I would be interested in knowing if MGS tested using this technology or not.

They are LONG (especially when you tally up the 7-iron and wedge with the driver), relatively soft (104 compression), have fairly low driver spin, and you can get them for around $25 a dozen at any Dick’s (readily available). A long, soft, cheap ball, with relatively low driver spin. Throw in the CG tech, and what’s not to like?

Christopher

Pakdoc

1 year ago

That’s why I have been stocking up on 2017 TP5’s. DICKS 20% off coupons plus DICKS Bucks and get the cost down to @$27/dz. Dispersion is great and distance gapping btw clubs is most accurate from my testing btwn TP5/X PV1/x.

Jim W

1 year ago

Agree. Read the article and said to myself “Why not give Maxfli a try?” Went to DSG, purchased and played with the next day. Just as long as “the big guys” , more accurate with the wedges and putted great with them. At 1/2 the price (on sale) as the the big guys, it’s a no brainer. Thanks for the article.MGS!

Eddie

1 year ago

I love the article. The whole back and forth between these guys on feel or no feel is hilarious. I have just been reaffirmed that i play the best ball for my game… Bridgestone B XS. Longest ball ive hit, has good spin without losing distance, which means i can take it to a course with fast greens and still have control. And feels great off the putter. I was playing tp5 until i tried these, they just didnt have the distance with mid irons IMO. I ve tried them all, and i only consistently break 80 with xs or pro v1x even though i dont care for the feel of v1x. All others i.e. srixon anything, avx, tp5(x), snell, vice, V1, BX, chrome soft.. just dont cut it. I know if i play any of those at any time, its mid 80’s all day. I spent all last season ball testing is how i came to this conclusion. Anyone who says you cant have both perfomance and feel hasnt ball tested enough yet. There is a such thing as “Your ball!” Find it and end the debates between you and ppl who dont swing like you.

Rob W.

1 year ago

So at 100 mph the combined Driver & 7i distance for a Bridgestone B rx is 411.44 yards. Snell MTBx is 408.12. I’ll stick with the Bridgestone.
Most holes I play require at least 2 shots to reach the green; 3-4 on bad days :-).
Declaring performance winner based on driver distance only seems to oversimplify the findings of the test.

Brian P

1 year ago

This is a great guide! Once I figured out to select both 85mph and 115mph to get to my 103mph speed, it was very informative for me. Perfect timing too. There are a few guys I play with in my handicap range who swear by Snell. Like me, they were all ProV1 players. I have been a Titleist guy for as long as I can remember, but the rising cost is a concern. I was looking for a reason to try Snell MTB-X and this firmed up that decision. I purchased a few dozen yesterday and will see how it goes. Hard to beat $28 per dozen vs. $48 if the ball performs.

Rob W.

1 year ago

Brian,
I’m is the same swing speed category as you – 100mph. When I compared my Bridgestone Brx combined driver & 7i distance, I get 411.44 for Brx & 408.12 for MTB-X for the two shots. Looks like whatever distance you pick up with the driver, you drop on the approach shot.
Since most holes I play require 2-5 (lol) shots for me to reach the putting surface, I thought it was an oversimplification to declare the longest driver ball the winner of the test.
Just offering a different way to look at these numbers.

Erik

Pete

1 year ago

I’m having a great time with the Snell balls. The other day, I hit a 230 yd drive with my Callaway 3 wood. A couple of days later, I hit 245! Because of my knees I use arm strength only. Maybe after surgery, I will get even longer? Try the Snell balls gents, you will NOT be disappointed!

Otto

1 year ago

Why is this the big question to ask? What changes do you want? This test is meant to educate buyers so they’re informed when making a purchase. Take it for what it’s worth and don’t expect any changes from mfg. Besides, if they all go making changes, MGS will have to redo the test haha.

Walter

1 year ago

Otto, oh it’s you, you get around don’t you, haha.
As for your question, I believe MGS already stated they’d redo the tests every year. Gee I didn’t realize a test of this magnitude was to educate buyers, thanks for the tip.

Walter

1 year ago

MGS, I meant no disrespect on my comment, I love the work you guys do.

Jeremy

1 year ago

If golf companies don’t care about MGS’s tests, why did Titleist and Costco get in the dustup over the K-Sig? Why does Ping and other OEM’s use MGS’s data and results in their ads? OEM’s obviously care. Watch the response Callaway is going to have moving forward. They are going to be pissed and be in react mode.

Walter

1 year ago

I sure hope so, as well as all the others too.

Count Tyrone Rugan

1 year ago

I see where MGS is coming from. As a data point Feel is not objective. It is not a metric. It is a subjective emotion that cannot be measured. NOW, where I think feel does come into play is how the player reacts to the subjective metric of feel.

Now when you hit it thin or fat, there is a feel associated with that shot. So the notion of a softer ball may enhance the “feel” of a good or a bad shot (thin or fat or “heeled” or “toed” or high off the face or whatever). But when it comes to pure metrics, the analytics does not have measure for “feel”.

As an engineer and a product manager, we wish there were a way to take a subjective attribute such as feel and create a metrics for it, that would make sense.

Since, it is subjective, my opinion of good feel vs. your opinion of good feel will be different. The most effective way to define a metric for feel is probably do a survey of consumers and try to equate “feel” to a objective metric.

Art

1 year ago

Count, that “feel” metric has been identified by Ping I believe (maybe others as well, and I’m disappointed MGS hasn’t talked about it anywhere in this story). The metric is sound. You are feeling with your ears. Most people don’t/can’t accept that idea, it seems, so the soft ball lives on. Maybe with this additional data from MGS, that soft balls are also short, the facade of feel will become less relevant.

Erin Marie

6 months ago

My husband got me golfing, and for someone like me, working to be average, I do actually believe different golf balls have improved my play. I don’t need to spend huge money to see a difference. Started with Chrome balls, after I did one of those online ball fittings. Paying over $45 for a dozen, and I was doing well. Specifically chrome soft balls… I don’t think soft balls are for me. I don’t know if these online golf fitting things actually work? I switched and tried the higher-rated balls from your chart. Volvik, (husband) Bridgestone and OnCore. I noticed a difference, period, end of story… Can you please do an article about proper ball fitting? How to find the perfect ball? (Balls that aren’t over $40)… Lol 🙂 🙂

Michael Constantine

1 year ago

I play two balls exclusively. 1 ball for when I’m playing my local dog track and 1 ball for the country club, tournaments, nicer tracks etc. MGS testing above has proven all along what I have thought about both balls.

1) Srixon Q Star Tour is one of three most accurate balls per MGS testing. It doesn’t spin as much as I’d like on irons and wedges but as a moon ball hitter I can get along fine with them and get some decent check up.

2) Pro V1X is a little longer for me than the Q Tour and has much better spin rates with irons and wedges while proving to be just as accurate.

Walter

1 year ago

Tony and MGS, thanks for revealing the “Golf Ball Industries Dirty Little Secrets” and opening Pandora’s box into the truth about golf balls. You do know that you’re going to have to redo these tests every year now when the new balls hit the market with their new marketing lies about how good their new balls are and how it will make your game more like the tour pros we watch on TV. Like you stated, not many tour players use off the shelf balls which should tell people a lot about the QC of said products.
I guess it’s one thing(or many) that they forget to tell the buying public about their balls and just how bad some(not all) of them really are when it comes to performance. I’m pretty sure each of these manufactures have access to robot testing of their balls so they know the problems with each new design before they bring them out.
That being said I think you did a great service to the golfing public or should I say the non pro golfing public who don’t have the resources to know the inside info on golf equipment like the pros get. Thanks.

golfinnut

Mike

1 year ago

Some of the best work that MGS has done. Thanks so much for all of the hard work put into the testing. I have not purchased any clubs for about 4 or 5 years without visiting MGS now I will include my ball purchases. Keep up the great work shaking up the industry!!!

Robert

1 year ago

I agree with your comment about the good work, however 115 MPH and 85 MPH swing speed probably make up a very small following of this site. My guess is most people on here are somewhere closer to the middle of that range and would need that data to make this review more applicable

Discussed a few times, but given the volume of comments, I’m happy to repeat myself. Golf ball performance is largely linear. 85 and 115 give us solid endpoints for where real performance differences begin to emerge and where you really see a separation. Because of the linear nature of performance (there’s no such thing as a ball that’s low spin at 85, high spin at 100, and low spin again at 115), you can basically draw a line between the two numbers and extrapolate performance at any point (speed) in-between.

Terry

1 year ago

*While it’s not absolute, selecting both High and Low swing speed will give you a reasonable approximation of performance at a 100 MPH driver speed.

Just my 2 cents. Most drive the ball between 180 – 240 and score mid to low 90’s to mid to low 100’s if they’re scoring honestly. Honestly meaning no mulligans, penalties count and no gimme putts. That’s a 75 to 95 mph swing. 85 mph covers the vast majority of golfers.

Ryan

1 year ago

Can you explain the large jump I’m shot area when you select the box for both 85 MPH and 115 MPH? I was always under the impression that the higher the swing speed the larger the shot area. The numbers on the table at the end show the largest shot area being for 100 MPH.

Is there a reason shot area dispersion for 100 MPH is way higher than 85 and 115 MPH?

Dave

1 year ago

Tony – maybe I missed this in the article or all the comments, but what was the sample size for each ball, club & swing speed? I’m curious if one ball significantly offline (20 yards or more) had a major impact on the offline avg and st dev results.

Uncle Pauly

1 year ago

This was such a fun read. May be the most interesting thing I’ve read golf-wise in a while. I know you don’t think suryln cover balls are worth the trouble, but the truth is that many won’t pay even $25 per dozen. I’m kind of at that crossroads now. I love the premium balls, but don’t love seeing them soar into the forest. Anyway, I’m making a donation because of this article.

Walter

Gilles

1 year ago

Inesis is the golf mark of Decathlon, the French sports equipment company. These are the only stores which sell that golf ball of course.

Bobarino

1 year ago

FWIW – There seem to be a number of comments about the MTB-X wandering off line. I’m a Snell guy and buy the value pack once in a while. Last time I bought five dozen (of the MTB Black) I spent an evening in front of the TV dunking all the balls in epsom salts solution to see if any were “out of balance”. The vast majority of the Snells had no discernible problems; there were some (10?) which weren’t perfect, but were fine to take to the course; but there was the occasional ball which clearly was “out of balance”, or more accurately – had a discernable center of mass which could throw the ball off its axis when rolling/flying. Not many, maybe five “out of balance” out of the five dozen…

Mario

Bob

1 year ago

As a scientist/ physicist, and most importantly an avid golfer, I can assure you as of today, the best and very best ball is the Snell MTB-X. After robotically testing, field testing, and dissecting the other top rated balls such as top rated Titliests, Bridgestone, Taylormade, and Srixons, the criteria, characteristics, and proven results of the Snell MTB-X are without question, the best. But as you see, Joe Golfer will always buy in to what they hear, knit pick testing results, and show their gullibility by playing what the pros play. The best golf balls are around $30 a dozen but golfers will spend $50 on Pro V1 balls. Why? One of my testing associates said it best, ” they must have a master’s degree in golfing stupidity.” Which golf ball you play is personal preference since one ball does not fit all. Since the pros are paid to play a certain ball, you see TV commercials with pro endorsements, advertising, and marketing which raises the price of golf balls. With Snell MTB-X you get no BS, just a great ball for about $20 less. How gullible are you?

Walter

1 year ago

Bob, as a scientist/physicist how can you say the MTBX is the best ball when it has the worst driver offline data, -21yds AVERAGE should not class it as a best ball. Flight accuracy is the top priority for a golf ball in my opinion, but obviously it’s not in your opinion. Please explain why you think the MTBX should rate so high with a stat like that. Thanks.

Bob

1 year ago

Walter, our testing was done independently and we insured all balls were placed identically with seam, against seam, logo facing forward, logo facing backward to achieve a criteria that was as precise as possible. I do not know how MGS tested the balls but their results are great. Our results did not show that dispersion, sorry. We made every effort to eliminate any variable for testing. If you have a problem with anyone’s testing results, as I said before, everyone should choose a ball that fits your game. I chose Snell MTB – X. Problem is they are on backorder until May 15. I guess somebody is getting it right because no other ball, and I mean no other ball is sold out and on backorder.

Walter

1 year ago

Bob, thanks for your reply. Interesting and good to hear that your tests proved different than MGS as far the dispersion off the driver. Did you use a robot for your tests? I was actually ready to buy some of the MTBX until I read the MGS report and saw the dispersion data on it. What other balls did you test? Can I get a copy of your test results for my own reading?

Walter

1 year ago

Bob, I should have reread your original post first, then I wouldn’t have asked some of the questions you already answered , sorry.

Bob

1 year ago

Walter, we did use robotics for testing. We tested all balls trying to eliminate every variable as I previously stated. Our results are very similar to the fine results stated by MGS. Unfortunately, our findings are not available for public viewing. My reason for testing, just like you and everyone else, if a ball can enhance my game, I want it even if it’s brand xxx.. When I did read the Wikipedia info on Dean Snell, I just had to test his new ball. When I found out he has the patent for Pro V1 and Taylormade TP, I assumed his knowledge of creating and recreating an outstanding ball had to be investigated, then tested. When he received bad reviews and negative feedback on his MTB red ball about ” ballooning” and acknowledged all this from average golfer feedback, not pros, there was no doubt he was a class act looking to help Joe Golfer. He then created the MTB-X x. Is it perfect? No!!! But look at other you tube reviews and OMG, MTB- X is pretty comparable and amazing for $30.

Walter

1 year ago

Bob, thanks again for your reply. Yes I was and still am impressed with Dean’s history, the man knows balls. I chatted with him once via email, very nice man.
It must be nice to just be able to go do some golf ball testing on an robotic swing machine at will as an avid golfer. I’m guessing your background opened some doors to make that happen though, good for you. Too bad you couldn’t share your results along with the MGS results.

Why do you suppose your findings differed from MGS’s results with regards to the MTBX ball and it’s dispersion. Did you also test the MTB as it’s dispersion was bad in the opposite direction. Can you share what driver you used for testing, not that it makes any difference to the test results, as I suppose the differences (in %)between balls would be the same regardless of driver used. Thanks for your time in answering my questions.

Bob

1 year ago

Walter, most of my testing was done using my 2017 Taylormade M2 driver. I did test the MTB-X using my son’s new Epic driver. The end result was the same. Dispersion was so close on all balls tested it would be unfair to pass judgement. Aerodynamically, if any ball is manufactured with a flaw on it’s cover, the ball will perform as a negative golf standard. Example, a spitball in baseball makes the ball deviate from normal flight standards, pitching into the wind makes the ball curve more dramatically. When we start splitting hairs about these results, it becomes a joke because any 1 degree of driver face twist at impact can taint any drive or test. On a personal note,my golfing friends asked if I took a testosterone pills when I started hitting Snell. It was that noticeable. I will be 70 in June and added 20 yards to my drives. Needless to say, they are all now enjoying the extra yardage that Snell has provided. Damn copycats.

Walter

1 year ago

Bob, Thanks again for your reply and sharing your testing results on this ball. Can I say WOW, 70yoa (I’m 62yoa)and you added 20yds, my best drive last season was 295 total(TP5) and this number was according to my watch GPS so who knows +/-?, my average is more like 280/285, mind you I’m at 3000′ above sea level too. Although after talking with a number of the Champion Tour pros last year when they were here they said the 3000′ (compared to sea level)doesn’t mean anything to them unless it is really hot out,>25c.
I’m not going to complain, extra distance is great but I’m more concerned about the best dispersion numbers for the ball. But I’ll take your word for it that these are worth trying out.

Walter

1 year ago

Bob, I see you also tested the Srixon ball, was it the Z Star or the Z Star XV version. I’d be interested to know how your data showed the Z Star, was it the same as MGS’s?

Walter

1 year ago

Bob, I should have asked this before, if you gained 20yds after switching to the MTBX ball what ball were you using before that made you that short off the tee?

Sam G

1 year ago

This was a great read, but I’m surprised no one seems to be mentioning the Inesis Tour 900 ball in any comments. This ball is cheap and generally performed really well, is this a ball that you’d generally recommend? Around $20 per dozen and perform on a par with much more expensive balls in the data. Am I missing something as to why no love for them?

Romeo

1 year ago

This must be one of the best tests of golf equipment…ever. Many thanks to the MGS crew for putting this out. Also thanks for not digging so deep into every question that must have popped up during this and delaying the release for another couple of years!

How do you guys get the balls? Do the manufacturers send samples or do you head to the PGATSS and pick up 24 dozen balls? If I were sending a dozen balls to MGS for a test, I would make darn certain it is a hand picked dozen. I bet any order from a golf company by a T. Covey would get some extra attention. Just curious if some balls chosen by the manufacturer to be included in this still had much larger than average dispersion.

I don’t like how launch monitors calculate the offline measurements. One goes 30 yds left and another 30 yds right and we have an average of 0 yds offline. This should be represented by the shot area. Can I take six times the STDev of yards offline to get the approximate max left vs max right shots?

pineneedlespro

1 year ago

Great testing on golf balls. Lots of good information. Will need to do it all over again in January when new product comes to market. May want to look into spin rate decay while in flight for different swing speeds. More information is needed for the average golfers that swing 70 to 85 mph and shoot 100 for 18 holes and play 2-piece golf balls. Do golf balls with dimple in a dimple design fly higher and longer??? Thanks MGS.

michael pasquill

1 year ago

I said the same thing people in that range need the information as well they did not do a good job in that aspect they should have tested that range as well they forget that the average golfer swings at that range not at 100mph or even 85 it is in between the range that you stated. They did great work on their parameters but should have expanded it.

BoxedCanyons4Me

1 year ago

The data processing and interpretations are interesting in these posts.

Are not most of these non-OEM balls recommended at the top of the list manufactured by Foremost Golf out of Taiwan – and not some dedicated golf ball manufacturing plant. And, what’s the problem with that if they are high performance per the study?

There is an apparent bias in the study towards distance with harder urethane only cover balls – which works in mining robot data; but doesn’t really pay true justice to important feel attributes to a ball: Would a golfer give up 6 yards of driver distance to balance that with a good feel ball to chip and putt with? I think so.

I don’t know about Snell balls, I have never hit them but know the TP5 and the Kirkland 4-piece and they are outstanding competitive offerings.

The dispersion numbers are troubling from a data analysis standpoint: If there is that much standard error in the robot testing/data, then the differences (ranges described) between the longer and shorter balls may be mis-placed or erroneous.

This is not golf ball fitting: there is no optimization here for a golfer; the data is for a fixed set-up that does not recognize the differences (even in distance attributes) that marry a given ball to a given swing profile.

Emery

1 year ago

WORD. Did fitting & 2017 TP5 was best for ME. So I’ve stocked up on the 2017 TP5 close-out. Golfers Really need to know which ball(s) give them uniform club distance separation, best distance & lowest dispersion. Nobody swings like a robot but you have to have that non-variable for something to compare. Next quikie test just do 100mph to satisfy the masses & fill the missing data space.

Pete

1 year ago

I have found the ball that is suited to my game and I refuse to buy any other. I LOVE the Snell Get Sum and will continue using them as long as I’m able to play. Some guys just take this game too seriously. It’s a fun game, don’t try and turn it into a game above your ability!

JCGolf

1 year ago

Awesome study. Appreciate all the hard work you guys put in. As a scientist myself, the one thing that really stands out to me as odd is the offline part of the test. If you look at the results, it’s clear that the test has a bias towards to the left. It’s strange that on average, all of the balls would have a “left” bias. So for me personally, I’m taking “-5” and normalizing that to 0, and then you have your true “offline” value for the average ball. If your average ball is -5, then is -10 actually -10 offline? Or is it more like -5? Makes the Snell MTB-X even more awesome in that regard.

Walter

1 year ago

JC, how can you say it makes the MTBX even better. As it stands the MTBX still had the worst driver offline data, normalizing -5yds to the new zero reference doesn’t change that.
I was all ready to push the buy button on the Snell balls until this came along, very disappointing. Both the MTBX (-21yds)and MTB (+5)had the worst driver offline data. I think the average for all balls was about -8. This doesn’t make the Snell balls look very good for that particular stat, does it.

Otto

Where are you getting the -21 yrds offline? I see -8.4 in the dispersion chart.

Walter

1 year ago

Otto, I’m looking at the std dev numbers not the average numbers. Yes for the average data the number is -8.57(not -8.4).

TJ

1 year ago

Great write up! I don’t foresee myself leaving the Chrome Soft X behind for a while, but have used Snell MTB Red and ablack in the past and really liked them. Was curious about the MTB X, but as you said, pick one and stick with it. That’s my plan for this year at least, but this definitely gives good info if I decide to change things up.

Anyhony Stewy

1 year ago

What I see here is data for people to read. No really solid interpretations can be drawn from it as you don’t know what each of us is looking for. Distance is nice and spin is great but feel reigns supreme mixed with whatever your second priority is. I think trying to form decisions based on this information alone would be a big mistake. I’m so willing to gain 8 or 10 yards to give up the feel of my blade. Nowhere is the most 2 important features rated together. Feel off the putter and how quickly the ball begins it’s full roll. The best putter wins the game week in and week out and for ratings to be applied without using some dataset on putting is really missing the mark. Durometer testing and audible ques (what make up 80% of what we refer to as “feel” ) should have been included. Having worked on the lpga, and PGA for over 20 years alongside the best in the game, this test missed the mark and may well send consumers running out to buy balls that go far but feel like glass marbles or ballbearings.
I know no player who would be ok hitting it farther if this was the feel they would get.

Anthony

1 year ago

What I meant to say was I would NOT give up feel for 8 or 10 yards. The feel off the putter and hope it reacts off the putter is the info I search for and I’ve played the same ball for 11 years. The ball releasing 6 feet or rolling out 9 feet is not the least bit important to amateurs nor is adding 3 or 7 yards. Holling more putts is!

Walter

1 year ago

To me the most important spec would be flight direction accuracy. If the ball can’t fly straight consistently when given the correct hit to produce said flight then there is a problem. Going farther is great but I want straight or consistent flight direction.

Feel is meaningless. Golfers love to talk about it, but it has no actual bearing on performance. Feel is why soft balls have emerged to the detriment of actual performance.

The idea that time to roll is a significant factor is also a myth. While there are putters (and possibly, though you’d have to prove it to me, balls) that can produce forward roll slightly faster than others, there absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest it helps the ball go in the hold with greater frequency.

Essentially, you’re just repeating exactly the same type of myths we’ve tried to dispel with this test.

Finally…and speaking of myths, the drive for show, putt for dough stuff has also been debunked. If you haven’t done so already, I’d strongly suggest picking up a copy of Every Shot Counts or Lowest Score Wins.

Ian

1 year ago

“Feel is meaningless” – Tony Covey
I can’t believe you went there. Are there many people out there that would hit a pebble of a ball to gain 5 yards off the tee, give up feel around the green and putt a ‘clicky’ ball? How can you discuss ball fitting without feel? Understanding the compromises in performance opting for a softer feel is one thing but eliminating feel altogether in favour of performance is quite the other and could lead everyone to believe the best performing ball fits everybody. If feel is meaningless then there’d be no need for blades or forging. We’d all go for irons that gave us the most help. What about looks? Well if feel is meaningless, looks have nothing to offer us in performance either.
I know strokes gained is en vogue at the moment but getting to the dance floor 0.14 strokes per round better isn’t going to help if you can’t dance. I’d gladly give 5 yards back from the tee for a nicer feel off the putter.
Ball fitting as such has to be a compromise. Performance over feel? Yes, but not so far as to lose too much feel. Feel over performance? If you must, but understand the implications of the choice.
To say players are giving up to much performance opting for a soft feel golf ball is one thing but to say feel is meaningless is another.

Emmanuel

1 year ago

” It should be obvious enough, but performance, not feel, should be your primary consideration.”

What do you consider “performance” in this sentence? Do you refer to distance? In this case I don’t agree with the statement…

Simply put, performance is the ideal combination of speed, launch, and spin that work with your individual swing. Distance is part of it. You shouldn’t buy a ball simply because it’s long off the driver, but you also shouldn’t buy a slow ball that doesn’t spin around the greens because you like the way it feels.

My hope with the charts – particularly the launch and spin chart – is that golfers will look at what they’re playing now and see if there’s something (based largely of the launch and spin characteristics) might be a better fit for their game.

Glenn

Bobby

1 year ago

Lol that’s probably more your swing then the ball.. I’ve been playing it for a few weeks now and I love it! It’s pretty obvious that this test proves it is the best ball out there and for 30 bucks you can’t beat it! Plus Dean snell is a legend!

Walter

1 year ago

Ha-ha, Bobby that’s too funny, maybe it’s your consistent slice that’s producing a straighter flight with your driver or maybe it’s your 80 driver swing speed that’s not seeing it go offline.
I guess you don’t trust or believe the data that Tony just presented about the MTBX(or the other balls in the test). Just to refresh your memory, it had the worst driver offline data, -21yds average is not a great stat, even if you consider that maybe -8 was the norm because of the draw biased robot. Which makes the MTB just as bad at +5yds. I was hoping for better results for the Snell balls and was ready to buy, but I’m not sure anymore.

Bob Kendall

1 year ago

Extremely well done. I tried the ERC soft on the weekend and found it went no where. So did you.

John

1 year ago

I tried the ERC right when it came out and still have a dozen or more sitting downstairs because I thought they were absolutely a dud. No feel and distance was lacking. Still don’t understand how some golfers thinks its long. Not my experience at all.

missleman

Jack

1 year ago

Great work folks. I am confused on whether you tested the Wilson Staff Duo Pro (video seems to show this box and the link to purchase) or the Wilson Staff Duo Urethane (which the graphing lists?)
Thanks again for all your hard work!

Alex

1 year ago

Great job guys. I’m not sure I understood why Titleist pro v1x is for slow speed swing. Please Can you clarify ? I’m a fast swing so After this test I am considerIng to leave pro v1x, after many many years, for Bridgestone tour Bx. Do you think that it works?

Walter

1 year ago

Tony, great review and overview of golf balls. As usual you guys did a bang-up job on presenting the results.
I have a question about the raw data though. When you look at the std dev set of data for fast, then slow the numbers look correct or believable, but when you select both fast and slow boxes to get the 100mph swing speed the numbers are way out. I think there is a problem with this, could you please check this.

I’m more than a little concerned about the offline data for what we would believe are from top tier golf balls, that is just baffling that they can have that poor of control in manufacturing to result in data like that.

Great article. What 7 iron loft was used? Could care less about which club was used, but I think the loft is important to we can determine spin rates. Also, was the same shaft flex used for 85mph and 115mph? Cause that would play a huge difference in results. I know it’s not the focus of the article, but knowing the variables does provided added context to the results. Thanks!

Jeremy

DTown3011

1 year ago

Guys – one of the main takeaways here is that one size doesn’t fit all, EVER, when it comes to golf balls. You cannot simply look at numbers, deduce what is going to be best for you on the course, and call it your ball. They can’t make a recommendation for you on which is the best ball for you. If anything, use this as a GUIDE to pick 2-3 different ball types and brands to test and TAKE THEM OUT TO THE GOLF COURSE. Hit the shots you want to hit and as many people have said, start closer to the green and move back. Just because XYZ ball had the highest ballspeed on a robot test at 115 mph doesn’t mean it will for you – but it’s probably worth a test. The best part about this guide is that it’s shown me which balls are competitive and which aren’t worth my time. But with a single robot test under specific conditions, I’ll use it as a guide but not the end-all, be-all of golf ball fitting. It’s really interesting data nonetheless.

I personally play the Chrome Soft X and do not find it to be short at all, but I look forward to testing the Snell golf balls (already ordered a test pack) as well as the Bridgestone balls this year which I’ve been meaning to do.

Tyler Tarbet

1 year ago

Agree completely. I’ve been back and forth with the Chrome Soft X and the Tour B X. Honestly, they go the same for me off the tee. (110 swing speed). I just feel the CSX also has a touch more spin for me around the greens on shots I like to play. Not everyone’s cup of tea…but CSX is great for me.

Andrew

1 year ago

Sean,

Awesome analysis, great work, I did a similar analysis, not quite as comprehensive and found V1x up there as well.
I am interested to hear your thoughts on the Bridgestone Tour B XS. As it seems to have some significantly better results than other balls in the shot dispersion category.

sean

1 year ago

Appreciate the complement. Regarding the Tour B XS:

Driver: mostly average aside from a moderately poor grade (-1 standard deviation) in spin rate being a bit too high.
7 iron: The fourth highest grade based on my weighting in this category (+.5 STDEV) thanks in large part to a near +2 STDEVs in it’s STDEV of offline shots. The dispersion grades were fantastic across the board, spin was +.5 STDEV… the only issue was not only was the carry short (-1 STDEV) the consistency for the carry was roughly -1 STDEV. So this ball is very good with side to side dispersion but a bit short and inconsistent on it’s distance.
Wedges: Overall grade here was roughly +.3 STDEV, good for 6th place. The story is similar to the iron story. Very good ‘offline’ grade and a great shot area grade (both +1 STDEV) but the second worst grade in carry STDEV (the consistency of the carry distance) which with regards to wedge play is probably the most important metric aside from spin (which it’s pretty average in).

I think the gist of the article is confirmed by the analysis on this ball. All of these balls are great balls. It comes down to prefereance. If you are normally a straight hitter with questionable distance control, this probably isn’t your ball. But if you know that your 3/4 swign with your sand wedge *is going to* go 72 yards and you need a little help keeping it straight— this could be the ball for you.

COGolfer

1 year ago

That would be a brilliant widget; give those three boxes to enter the weights and have it pop out the suggested ball. Although, I don’t think that would be a simple thing to put together.

sean

It actually would be very simple. Weight your thoughts for the driver:

% Distance
% Offline
% Spin

100% distance will put you in a Snell MTB-X. Focus on Offline puts you in a couple others. Focus on lowest spin and offline puts you in the QStar Tour.

Do that excersie for each club (with the wedges you don’t care about distance as much as distance consistancy , etc.) and then do a weighting of % driver vs. % irons vs. % wedges and it will absoltuely spit out a ball for you.

I’d bet the best way to do it is to get down to 3 or so balls and then test them on your own.

MGS idea – What if you guys gave us a detailed post on *how* to test different balls. What shots should you be taking by the green to get the feel for the spin? Whats a good sample size? Do i need to hit 30 wedges from 50 yards to get the feel? Do I need to hit 100? Or only 5?

Andrew

1 year ago

Sean,

Thanks for the reply regarding the Bridgstone Tour B XS, that explains why it wasn’t rated as highly as I initially thought it should be. There is some great information in there if you dig down into the data.

James

1 year ago

Outstanding work there Sean. Confirms the MGS testing no doubt. As you also stated would be easy to weight what is important to a player and make ball recommendations. I have always played the Pro V1X for the distance and greenside control. My son, a scratch competitive junior player, prefers the TP5 standard version. Says it gives him good distance and he likes the way it performs for him off the irons, like a 7 iron, and isn’t as much worried about greenside control because he can spin the heck out of a tour level ball anyhow. Again, great work Sean! Appreciate all you did!

David Keppler

1 year ago

Best ball tests ever, well done! Curious, might you have the “total distance” with roll out based on spin? Softer balls can actually check up while others can roll out quite a bit which can make total distances much different than just carry?

RJ

1 year ago

“The conventional wisdom for golf ball fitting is to start near the green and work your way out. Over 60% of your shots are hit from within 150-yards of the green, so that’s where you need your golf ball to perform. A good rule of thumb is to fit the golf ball to your irons and wedges and then fit your driver to the golf ball.“

It would see the Chrome Soft performs best in the iron/wedge testing, so given the above statement why wouldn’t the Callaway balls be rated higher?

nicebirdie

Joe

1 year ago

My exact sentiment. I was a titleist snob for eons… since balaka. Liked Truvis and thought Chrome X had something, although breaking 80 seemed to be a thing of the past. With my new AP3s, and soon to be ProV1s, my game is mine again.

Larry

Mathew

1 year ago

Wow, This is incredible. So many important and thoughtful takeaways.

The only thing I think is missing is the aerodynamics piece. Its safe to assume that some balls have more efficient dimple patterns than others, and while one may leave the club face faster, another may cut through the air more efficiently and carry that speed farther into its flight effectively carrying a longer distance. Mizuno’s new balls Callaways Hex Dimple, Bridgestone’s Double dimple, and Nike’s Micro dimples are all examples of thousands of hours of research on how unique dimple patterns have an effect on the balls aerodynamics, and I’d be interested to see how that has an effect on the final landing point of each ball instead of just the calculated landing point based on its launch conditions.

I know this would have been impossible to test without renting one of those giant airplane hangers where there is no wind and physically measuring each ball’s landing point, but that is the final piece of this whole puzzle in my eyes.

Ian Dahl

Robert D. Herpst

1 year ago

That is a great collection of data. At 72, I love the Chrome soft since it gives me the great satisfaction of that “smush” feel that I can no longer produce with a harder ball, but the data tells me I ought to be going back to a Pro VI x which is what I had been playing. I guess now I need to go out on the course and hit a couple of dozen of each of them with driver and a 7 or 8 iron and compare the results. Right now it is still cool enough in the NY area for that soft feel to make the soft balls more fun to play but in 90 degree heat in July and August the Pro VI x will feel much better. Thanks for a great study. The one piece of advise that we all ought to agree on is stick with one ball and learn how it performs. A few yards one way or another don’t make a lot of difference but consistency does.

Art

1 year ago

Ian, yes you probably can eliminate the outliers in a box of balls. I say probably, because I am assuming it’s out-of-balance golf balls that are causing such poor performance. All you have to do is a float test with each ball. You can find the procedure online.

I recall someone in the MGS video suggesting a Check-Go, which spins the ball at high RPM to find the balance axis, but this doesn’t identify poor quality balls and may only be beneficial for putting. Overall balance, as indicated by the float test, is what you want.

James

1 year ago

I’ve done launch monitor tests on the b x and b xs balls. Interestingly, I got lower spin and longer distance off the irons with the b xs. On course testing, the b xs was longer than the b x for both driver and iron shots.

Any idea why my experience is different than your results? I’m a .9 and put both balls through the ringers on both the launch monitor and on course testing. B xs just better and showed the inverse of your results.

Jim

1 year ago

Another great test from MGS. Can’t say I’ve ever seen such detail in the analysis of a golf ball. Glad to see that the Snell balls perform at the top levels and again glad that I switched to Snell several years ago. I’ll have to try the MTX version when my supply of Blacks runs out too. Can’t beat the price of the Snell for the performance delivered and I appreciate Dean’s honest descriptions of the ball’s design and features that he produces too. Why spend $48 when you can spend $32 for a dozen balls? Keep up the great work MGS too.

JP

Greg

1 year ago

I was told in a post below that people in our swingspeed (85-100 based on driver, my 7i is around 80-85 so driver is probably in the 90’s) that, if your driver is closer to 100 than 80, you should be looking st the mid to high compression level. I’ve played the tour soft and loved it, but now I’m wondering if I can get more consistency and a bit more Greenside control from something like the tp5 or the pro v1

Glenn

1 year ago

This is by far the most awesome thing you guys have done. Thank you!
What I am looking for in a ball, is the MOST CONSISTENT ball I can play. I am trying to figure out which ball that is from the data, but there really is no way to figure that out I think. It would require another experiment, testing a bunch of balls from the same manufacturer and box and comparing the dispersion, distance, to another manufacturers box.
Thoughts on what ball had the most consistency from shot to shot?

Adam

1 year ago

I think you’ll want to look at the standard deviations tab in the raw data table, and look for the smallest standard deviations in whatever category is most important to you. These numbers will represent the range of outcomes 95% of the time, for each ball.

For instance, standard deviation of carry yards is probably a very important one. With the 115mph clubhead speed, the Srixon ZStar is at 1.53, so 95% of the shots fell within 1.53 yards of eachother. Meanwhile, there are others that are over 10, so those balls are seemingly 7x less consistent as far as carry distance goes.

Terry

1 year ago

If the standard deviation published is a single StdDev (which it probably is) then 95% are within 2 StdDevs so you double the amount. Pretty much all of them are within 3 StdDevs (99.5%). So you are mostly right about finding the lowest standard deviation.

Glenn

1 year ago

Thanks fellas!

Glenn

1 year ago

Looks to me like the ProV1X rises to the top when you look at consistency and averages. Then Bridgestone Tour BX. Doesn’t TIGER play the stock Tour BXS? Surprising that he would use a ball with lower compression, ball speed and carry etc. Maybe he just likes the feel lol.

John

1 year ago

You could have asked. I have dozens of them in sealed boxes and I would have been happy to donate a box for the cause. Of course, if they performed well, everyone would be upset because you tested a ball that was not available. Can’t win for losing.

P.J.

1 year ago

Generous offer, but really – no point. If you can’t buy them, then why bother?
You may be curious, but I’m sure there’s more relevant data out there that the MGS could be working on.

Greg

1 year ago

Sad to not see the Taylormade PROJECT (a) on the list as I constantly see it compared to the tour soft and q star tour, based on a guess, do you think there would be much difference in terms of distance and dispersion with the project (a) compared to those? Or would I be better off looking at the tp5/5x and getting an idea from their performance? My swing speed is in the 80-100 range depending on the club so I fall somewhere in the middle of this data set. I also wish you had the vice tour, but it’s a 3-piece surlyn ball and doesn’t really fall into the “tour style” category

Dispersion is a bit tougher to pin down because ball to ball consistency is a part of that equation. Using known comparisons (it likely qualifies as soft), you can reasonably extrapolate launch characteristics from similar models. Unless there’s a specific reason to go soft, if you’re closer to 100 than 80, the data suggests you’d likely be better off in the mid to high compression range.

Greg

1 year ago

Unfortunate at his time, I’m at the 80-85mph range with my 7-iron and I haven’t had a chance to test my driver speed, but based on my 7i being in the 80’s I’d venture to guess my driver speed is somewhere in the 90’s, which would still put me in the mid-compression range I guess

Don Beck

1 year ago

I live in Arizona and we play all year with temps from low 30’s to 115+. Has any ball testing been done on the effect of this temp range and the relationship between low and high compression balls? Good test and thank you.

In general, when you can, you want to avoid severe temperature shifts as it can cause balls to degrade faster. We haven’t tested it, but certainly here in NY there are guys who switch to softer balls in the winter (when rounds often start below 30°) because their normal ball feels too firm. From an actual performance perspective, it’s not something we’ve looked at. I’ll ask a few of the ball guys.

donald beck

1 year ago

Thank you. In our neighborhood, many leave their golf stuff in the garage but we bring ours inside the house. I hit a prov1x all winter. I couldn’t tell much difference in feel. Going to try some chrome softs and try to get a feel if they are shorter off my swing.

Don Beck

1 year ago

Tony, I use prior generation golf balls when they go on sale. Used Pro V1x practice balls all winter. Just like the test, driver was long but the irons were half to a full club shorter. I thought it was the cold weather. After the test, I had some chrome softs so immediately took those out. They were shorter off the driver with a real difference in dispersion distance. What was nice was every iron went my expected distance. I also didn’t notice that much off line dispersion off woods or irons, pretty straight . For me then, I would still play the chrome softs because I like hitting the ball close to pin high. As you have indicated, fit the ball to what you want. Doesn’t mean I won’t hit a V1x, but now I know why the irons don’t go as far and won’t mind compensating. I also have a couple dozen TP5 and TP5x, would be nice if they went farther than the chrome soft off the driver but as long as the irons. This personal testing is more fun when there is a little science behind the results.

Don Beck

1 year ago

Tony, another thought on the soft balls. I know the goal is always longer, longer, longer. However, if the t ball you are hitting doesn’t go as far but one likes the feel, one could always move up a tee. While I am not one for dialing the current balls back, I do think that the loss of distance from hard to soft balls in your test could be accommodated by using a different tee.

Nick

1 year ago

WOW. Great article – this is exactly the data we’ve all wondered about, and the charts and graphs really help illustrate differences and allow for comparisons. Thank you! After reviewing everything, I’m left with questions about the Bridgestone RXS (related to it being categorized as “Fair”). Reviewing the data (and selecting both 85 and 115mph for a 100mph average), it seems as though YES, it’s about 5 yards shorter than the ProV1 off the tee, but it also seems to be about 5 yards longer with the 7i, and a yard or two longer with wedges – launches higher, spins less, so this makes sense. Additionally, it seems to have a better average offline value with both irons and wedges. For a mid-handicap with a driver SS of 100, this sort of seems like an ideal ball. Yes, you give up 5 yards on tee shots… but given driver is only hit a fraction of the times an iron or wedge (especially with a higher handicap), wouldn’t the gains in iron and wedge distance and accuracy more than make up for this? Or were there outlier shots that made the ball inconsistent enough to outweigh the averages? Thanks for the article… and also for being so responsive to comments. I read it with the data on one side of my screen and Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer on the other!

Max R.

1 year ago

Sorry, I tried to reply to your comment about the Snell pricing. My comment was that the pricing for the TP5 was getting 4 dz for the current price of 3. Titleist and TaylorMade are doing the same marketing (with an additional personalized freebie).

Nick Tucker

1 year ago

Great Read and congrats on all the hard work. Overall a great article. After sifting through the data, its rather close for most of the balls.. I have to ask, did ad buys on your site play a role in determining who was on top? I notice an awful lot of Snell Golf ads here. Just sayin’!

People will believe what they want to believe, but nope. Zero influence.

One of the great benefits of being data-driven is that performance generally speaks for itself. MTB-X has excellent speed, launch, and spin characteristics, but we observed a few shots that wandered more offline than we felt they should. It’s reflected in the data, and it’s something golfers should consider. It’s the sole reason why we classified it as Very Good, but not excellent (the excellent balls are those for which we have no significant performance concerns). Factor in price, it’s hard to argue against the value. MTB black is good, but nothing about it jumps off the page.

Ultimately, sponsors come and go and if a brand bails because of a test result, that’s better than fine. We’re not in the business of selling garbage to our readers. It’s consumer-first here, and so if products don’t perform, we don’t want them here. Once upon a time, we had a sponsor finish DFL in a driver test. Sponsors are entirely replaceable. The trust of our readers is not so easily replaced.

John Richardson

1 year ago

I’d be extremely interested in a study using a check-go or other method of balancing balls and the effect on dispersion.
I’be been using for over 30+ years at first as a god way to add a marked line for putts vs lining the logo. (I was pretty much alone in doing this)
Now look at them all 🙂
I also “suspect” the balancing improves dispersion AND stopping power/spin but it’s only my perception as of now.
THANK YOU for your hard work.

Mike

1 year ago

This was a great reply.

Tim

1 year ago

This was one of the best articles I have read in a long time but I do have a few questions. Why did you choose 115mph swing speed? Who the heck swings it like that outside of tour pros? 1% of the population?? Can we assume a 90-95 mph swing speed would produce mirrored results? The MTB-X is rated highly in your test but you also say the compression can vary up to 30 points within the same box? Would that make you lean towards a Titleist or Bridgestone as the best all around ball to play?

The swing speeds chosen were based on the advice with what I guess we can call advisors within the industry who have extensive ball testing experience. The two speeds provide the end points between where differences begin to become apparent and where speed reveals more significant differences between balls. In some cases, companies will test balls at 180+mph ball speeds. As I’ve said several times, ball performance is largely linear, so when you connect the dots from 85-115 you can reasonably extrapolate most metrics for any point in-between.

Regarding quality and consistency, there’s plenty left to be learned and I have about 25 ideas for the next ball test, but in general – and taking cost entirely out of the conversation – I’d personally be more inclined to play Titleist or Bridgestone. No brand is spotless, and I think any honest ball guy would probably tell you that every now and again a bad ball sneaks past a QC check. That being said, there are realities that *could* impact the consistency of the ball.

Bridgestone and Titleist own their factories and make their own material (rubber).
Callaway has its own factory, but to the best of my knowledge does not make the material.
TaylorMade has a factory in the USA, but they use it only to put the cover on the balls.

Beyond that, most everything else is at least partially outsourced. Many of the smaller brands are a step further removed from the process in that they’ve played minimal to no role in the design but instead have purchased and branded a white label factory ball. That’s not to say performance can’t be exceptional and that consistency can’t be good. As I think I’ve said previously in this section, I personally wouldn’t play a ball from a brand for which nobody at the company owns a patent in the ball space.

Marty

1 year ago

I always knew the Chromes Soft X wasn’t the longest ball but what I couldn’t quite figure out was why my 110 mph swing was carrying it farther than the 115 mph robot. It wasn’t a lot farther but it’s farther. What’s funny about this distance article is the part where you explain how to find a golf ball, which I completely agree with. Just for fun I grabbed a sleeve of Bridgestone’s and went out to an open hole at my course and hit three SW’s from 100 yds. All 3 of the Bridgestone’s spun back like crazy. When I hit the Chrome Soft X, the ball takes one bounce and stops virtually every time. So my feeling is if I can’t hit my approach shots closer to the hole consistently, how is driving the ball closer to the hole going to help me? That being said, this is the most fascinating study you’ve ever done. Everyone should be clicking the contribution button.

Kinger

TR1PTIK

1 year ago

I’ve read through many of the comments and been active in the MGS Ball Test forum thread as well. I see several people paying particular attention to dispersion data. Could you clarify how balls were placed on the tee? Was it at random – just get the ball on the tee? Or, did you guys try to orient the golf balls in a particular way based on the balls properties (i.e. seam/no seam, CG, etc.)?

Is it possible that golfers might not see these same results on the course because we are imperfect swingers of the golf club and therefore our own failings may negate certain properties (poor quality) of the golf ball?

Ball orientation was random with the exception of the wet wedge test, which is an insane story for another day.

As I’ve said, speed enhances the difference between balls and it’s certainly probable that the same can be said about perfection. Not only is it reasonable to assume that performance differences won’t be as obvious, I’d wager that in some cases companies rely on the fact that you won’t notice – or attribute poor performance to human error. Having said that, the differences are certainly real and while a guy who swings 85 won’t suffer for a less than perfectly balanced ball like a higher speed player will, things like a significant variation in compression or dimple issues can make two of the same ball play like two different balls and that can be a big problem on the golf course.

TR1PTIK

1 year ago

Thanks for the reply Tony. Just wanted to try and bring some more clarification to the remarkable work you guys have done with this test!

Tyler S

1 year ago

How would you apply this to junior golfers who play at an intermediate to advance level? With swing speeds not as fast as an adult, would selecting a ball from the top two quality categories still be the best to start with?

The honest answer is that I don’t know. Most slower swing speed golfers would still benefit from more spin and that generally correlates with higher compression, but it’s also true that the manifestation of the differences between balls diminishes with speed, so a lower compression ball is likely to be more of a performance push.

It’s a really interesting question. I’ll ask around and see what the ball guys think.

daviddvm

1 year ago

Thanks for the great ball testing! I’ve learned a lot. This is important information to know. I’m done buying used (most found in water)balls and I’m moving from Pro V1 to Pro V1x new balls.
And most important I’m making donation to MGS today!

BRIANM

Jamie

1 year ago

Excellent information! I was a Titleist AVX user because I liked the lower iron spin but I am not willing to sacrifice consistency for a few extra yards off my irons!

Can you explain what criteria was used to rank the balls in the Performance Breakdown? After reviewing the raw data I was surprised to find the Snell MTB X rated as Very Good ball despite what I interpret as inconsistency issues (shot area, std dev metrics). The Vice Pro by comparison appears to be a much more consistent ball but it is only ranked as Good. Based on my interpretation of the raw data, I though the Vice Pro compared favorably to Titleist ProV1 which was ranked two categories higher. Were there other variables that can’t be easily explained by the data?

Second question- you shared a post a few weeks ago highlighting the compression inconsistencies within a single box of balls. Which model was the offender (am I guessing the data provides the answer)? I am having a hard time understanding how it is possible for a manufacturer to produce such inconsistent compression ratings. Is it fair to question the manufacturing consistency of entire DTC brand if one of their models produced inconsistent compression ratings? I would assume the manufacturing of all models within a smaller brand happens in the same factory and are subject to the same quality controls.

Regarding the rankings, no ball was perfect. There’s variability in everything and so in ranking it became a case of balancing the performance for things like distance, launch, spin, etc., with consistency concerns.

With the balls we rated as excellent, we believed the performance characteristics were solid, and there were no major red flags
Very Good was solid to exceptional performance, with a red flag or two in the data or because of something we observed during testing (Snell MTB-X looks incredible in terms of launch and spin and speed, but we did see the occasional ball wonder off the target line. Same with the ZStar XV and in similar respects, the Tour BX S.

James

Dispersion for the B X, while not as tight as the B XS in every scenario, was well within acceptable ranges. The ding (and really the only significant one) on the XS was that compression wasn’t as consistent as the other top balls, and so you do find some inconsistencies in other metrics that are likely related. At almost every level, there were balls that were on the line between one rating or another. The XS was on the line between Excellent and Very Good. Just one minor ding, but certainly nothing that would take it out of my consideration set.

Dave S

9 months ago

Thank – can you also address the Vice Pro question? It’s popping up a lot and frankly, I don’t get it either.

James Paterson

1 year ago

This data and research is great for golfers. Its a shame Snell golf balls are not available in the UK. Do they have any plans to enter the UK market? I find the off line data quite scary! As you state if you receive a poorly manufactured ball then it could be no fault of the player. Did you record which manufacturers had the most issues with ‘duff’ balls during testing?

PeterB

James Paterson

1 year ago

The MTB-X are not available on amazon or ebay. They are also out of stock on the Snell website. Any more ideas where these can be purchased?

Bobarino

1 year ago

I truly hope that Dean Snell posts some comments or opens himself up to questions in light of this testing. Of his own product, I’d be interested to hear why he thinks the X seems to be more left oriented and the Black right oriented! Also I thought the Black was supposed to be the longer. The other results between his two balls seem to be in line with his statements.

Walter

Frank Wiater

1 year ago

Wow this is an amazing test !! I too am in that 105 mph old man category and always looking for distance while maintaining control. What i noticed after playing around with this is that the balls that were the longest with the driver, were consequentially some of the shortest with a 7 iron. So I started by clicking both the “fast” and “slow” club speed and added the combined distance of the driver and 7 iron together for some of the balls I have already tried out. The difference of a few yards off the tee was negated by a longer 7 iron and they finished about a yard apart. The spin numbers off the diver were close enough they should roll out the same. and the spin with the 7 iron was in direct correlation to peak ht. The higher spinning balls would stop faster. I think before anyone runs out and buys a gross of balls based on these numbers, they should consider where they need the most help in their game first. Because some of these balls are VERY close in performance, and some are just pumpkins. thanks again for another amazing report.

Humza

1 year ago

In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing.

Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball.

Josh L.

The TT CSX was announced the week after we completed testing. As we did with every ball manufacturer of note, we reached out to Callaway ahead of the test and they offered no hint that a new ball was coming and, as you can see, didn’t pass any along for testing.

Frankly, the rollout strategy for the CSX TT and the Stars and Stripes Chrome Soft (also a different ball) is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen in the equipment industry to date. Callaway is changing the ball (that changed the ball), and while our test results suggest there’s a really good reason why, the company isn’t being entirely forthcoming about the fact that the ball is different and is only saying that the core is larger.

Based on what we know from our test as well as about actual use on tour, it’s a reasonable assumption that the new balls are firmer (and faster) and would likely perform better. Of course, if Callaway were to come out and say as much, they’d also be owning up to the fact that until now, the CS has been slow and that retail ball has always been significantly different from what’s played on tour.

Dave

1 year ago

Comments like this is why I read MyGolfSpy, great insight

Jeremy

1 year ago

Why does Callaway just not produce the tour CS ball and completely ditch the slow one that the average consumer uses?

James

1 year ago

You mentioned in several comments here that the Chrome Soft X Triple Track (2019) is a different ball than the non-TT CSX.

I couldn’t find that in any articles or other sources, so I called Callaway directly to ask about that. I got transferred to their technical team. The guy I talked to insisted that the 2019 CSX TT is exactly the same ball as the 2018 CSX with the same core, cover, and compression. He said the only reason they had to register is separately is because it had different markings on the exterior, but in construction and performance it’s 100% the same ball.

Zero chance my source is mistaken. He’s a senior level Callaway guy who works with the ball team.

Here’s the quote:

“CSX Triple Track is a different ball that we had tested with Tour players and is our most played ball on tour so we wanted to update it with the launch of Triple Track on CSX…The CSX TT is a slightly firmer core compression with a softer cover and a slightly different spin profile.”

There was some confusion at the time of launch, so we also reached out to the PR team for confirmation. Bottom line, the CSX TT is a different ball than other CSX flavors on shelves, but the new CS Stars & Stripes is the same as other CS balls.

A separate source puts the compression at ~7% firmer than other CSX models.

MAc

1 year ago

Did MyGolfSpy just kill the “soft” ball market? If this study gets the attention of players, I can’t see anyone ever wanting to by a “soft” ball again when so much of the industry is about distance.

ryebread

1 year ago

It sure feels like that is the case for the semi-informed buyer (which is what this community is). Even if all of us switched away from soft balls tomorrow, it’d take years before the masses moved away from softer balls.

Hopefully this will signal an across the board rise in compression, just like we’ve seen an across the board drop in compression the last few years.

Steve

1 year ago

Great stuff, though I am really struggling with some of the shot area/offline figures. I don’t understand how robot testing in a controlled environment could produce some of those dispersion numbers, unless wind varied greatly on different days or something.

This is the hardest point to convey to those who haven’t seen it first hand. Over the course of the test, there were several “holy shit, did that just happen” moments. Balls go wildly offline. Wind was mild during testing, and we still saw several balls fly significantly offline (in some cases AGAINST the general direction of the wind). When that happens, you check the robot, you check the data, and invariably the only thing left is the golf ball. I’ve mentioned it in previous comments, the ball experts we’ve spoken with have all seen it themselves. The cause could be one of a number of things – ball out of round, uncentered layers (most notably the core), aerodynamic issues (dimple irregularities, raised seams, that sort of thing).

Golf balls are not 100% consistent, not perfect, and it’s pretty disconcerting when you realize that through no fault of your swing, a near perfectly struck ball can still go OB.

TR1PTIK

1 year ago

Golf Digest shared these videos from Titleist a few years ago. It’s exaggerated because either one half or the entire ball has no dimples whatsoever, but it does demonstrate the influence of the ball’s surface – and that’s just one aspect of what Tony mentioned above!

Bret

1 year ago

Would be super interesting to collect those individual balls that flew way offline for additional testing.

Nick D

1 year ago

I was wondering how compression affects feel. I know usually higher compression feels harder but not always. I have been playing the chromesoft for 3 years and I was very shocked to see how poorly it performed. I tested the TP5X this spring and I’m so used to the chromesoft it feels like a rock on the putter. Is the Snell MT X similar to that? Snell MTX sounds amazing but I dont know if I can get used to that feel on putts.

Feel is a bit harder to quantify, but in general, a higher compression ball is going to feel firmer than a low compression ball. Many golfers prefer soft feel, and I suspect that’s how we got into what I would call the soft feel mess. The ball guys I’ve spoken with have specifically referenced “the preference-driven consumer”. Basically, they know soft is slow, but they also know that many golfers will play what they like and assign the blame for any shortcomings on themselves. So to answer your question, yes, the TP5(x) and Snell MTB-X will feel appreciably firmer, but they can also be expected to perform better.

billm311

1 year ago

Same thoughts, would like to know / see how the Titleist yellow balls (AVX, ProV1) perform. Neat to see slight differences in Srixon. I typically like playing the yellow ball, just for differentiation. But that being said, I also seemed to get better distance results from my old Nike yellows, but more spin from the white version.

Al Cape Cod

1 year ago

Why in the world is Snell more money than Srixon? You can consistently find Srixon Z star for $30…..vs $32 for higher end Snell. Not a big deal but Snell does virtually no marking vs Srixon. Both great balls.

J

The way to win with Snell is to buy 5 dozen at a time for $139.95….resulting in a tour caliber ball for $27.99 per dozen. It’s hard to beat that.

justin

1 year ago

awesome. but question i have is, back in 2013? 2015? u guys published an aricle on low compression ball, comparing cor vs swing speed, also sayin how soft balls are just as far as hard ball, but soft balls have advantages in low temp.

this result kinda contradicts the result from 2013 test on low coMpression balls.

Matt

1 year ago

The big things left out of this test are attack angle and dynamic loft. The big disadvantage to using a robot is we do not get to see how these balls perform for different swings. If we change the angle of attack and/or the dynamic loft, each ball will compress differently, and therefore, perform differently. Two swings of identical speed, that have different impact characteristics, will not produce the same outcome as the robot. If your swing does not compress the ball as much as the robot’s swing, a softer compression ball will not lose as much performance. The reason companies like MG can say the C4 outperforms the PV1 is because they can set up a robot to have the impact characteristics most friendly to their ball for that test.
What these results really show is exactly what MGS says in the beginning. Everyone should go get fit for a ball. I tested about 15 top end balls on my simulator and did a ton of data stuff (I work in big data) and the Vice Pro was my best ball (I tested both Snell MTB, but MTB X was not out yet), and Chromesoft X was 3rd best…better than both Snells and Titleists.
Bottom line is your swing is not the robot’s swing, go get fit for a ball.

As I’ve said, performance is linear, the ball only reacts to the club. There is no magic formula where performance characteristics suddenly flip. So while swing characteristics will influence the absolutes, a low spin ball will consistently spin less than a high spin ball, a slow ball will consistently be slower than a fast ball. That’s where fitting comes in. Just the right amount of spin for a guy with one set of characteristics may be too much spin for another.

The “compress the ball” thing is a total myth. Even at slower swing speeds there’s plenty of evidence of sufficient compression. The opposite, however, is true. You can overcompress a ball at higher swing speeds.

Finally, by no reasonable measure did the MG outperform the Pro V1. Spin numbers, among other things, for the former were wildly inconsistent in some portions of the test.

Christian

1 year ago

Just wondering whether you tested the same ball in white & yellow and whether there was a significant difference ?

Purely a curiosity. We figured since this isn’t something we have the opportunity to do all the time, why not take a look. There were some differences at 115 MPH of the driver that I’m going to look at more closely when I have some time, but as we’d expect, most everything else was margin of error/manufacturing tolerances worth of difference.

ryebread

1 year ago

Tony: You just hinted at the elephant in the room in my eyes — the robot. I was wondering if MGS had acquired one and thus we could see more robotic testing in the future, an expansion of this test, etc..

It sounds like that is not the case. I get it, but it is a shame.

Great job on the test. I would have loved to see how some low end, 2 piece rocks performed.

JB

1 year ago

This test is amazing. It’s a light year ahead of what’s been available to the public until now. Ball manufacturers have had a monopoly on this information for a long time. Even the best human testing on golf balls is inherently flawed because extremely small swing differences translate into significant differences at mid to high swing speeds. This test could only have been done this way to matter much. Thank you to everyone involved. Please continue this kind of work and I hope you get they proper support you’ve earned for this tedious endeavor. On a personal note, this week I planned on buying a season’s worth of Callaway Chrome Soft X. I’ll now be giving my hard-earned money to Mr. Snell. Thanks again.

David Keppler

1 year ago

GREAT tests and based on my exp seems right on. My 2 current gamers are CS-X & Vice Soft and per your tests, they are identical balls, ha! But I also may be losing 10 yards with my 98mph speed. I may be grabbing a sleeve of Prov1x & VolvikS4 and compare to my fav Vice Soft. Well done! (spy dudes, anyone there swing near me? what balls are your fav? being in AZ I do love distance but need some stopping power in the summer)

michael pasquill

While it’s not elegant, you can take the line from 115 to 85 and extend it to your swing speed. Speed accentuates differences, so based on what we saw anyway, in the 75-80 range, distance is likely a near wash. It’s likely the point at which all tour balls go, more or less, the same distance. Where you might still see a quantifiable difference is around the green, so while we believe fitting should always start around the green, for slower swing speed players that’s especially true.

michael pasquill

1 year ago

By saying that the data is a wash my rebuttal would be as the population is getting older your data is not helping those that have slower swing speeds you should have tested those balls at the slower swing speeds and show the data so that we can make an educated decision by the number along with testing out golf balls in the field of play. I understand that testing takes time but wouldn’t be prudent to show the slower swings speed people how they can benefit from this type of information. just my two cents thanks i appreciate your testing and the information

TR1PTIK

1 year ago

While not stated explicitly, it is suggested within the article that slow swing speeds will see little difference. This is also explained further down in the comments in which one of the MGS staff responds to a similar inquiry. What will help your game the most is a ball that spins. Backspin creates lift which will help the ball stay in the air longer on distance shots and will also benefit you around the green. Like most anything else, there is always a point of diminishing returns, but I don’t think you’d likely find a ball that spins too much at your speed. Hopefully MGS can provide more insight on that.

Andrew

1 year ago

Great information love the website. I am suprised you don’t give as much credence to accuracy as that what golf is all about. From my crunching of the numbers I find Bridgestone Tour B XS and Vice Pro, followed by Titleist Pro V1x and Srixon ZStar to be notably accurate.
I would love to see a comment on accuracy, given that’s what matters in golf?
Mygolfspy’s thoughts?

It’s not that we didn’t give much credence to accuracy, it’s that there are a number of variables in play – probably far more than most would assume with robot testing. In general, we weren’t looking at the precise numbers necessarily, but general consistency across the board in every scenario tested. We didn’t want to assume much, but I will say that the significant variation in the compression measurements of the Vice Pro Plus make us less than confident about the Vice lineup as a whole.

Dan

Lou

1 year ago

I have been playing the Srixon Q Star Tour since they started making it in yellow. I’ve had no trouble with dispersion. The ball goes where I aim it. Your tests show, however, that, despite being a good ball in most areas, it is the 2nd worst in dispersion. How can a ball that, generally, has been good in all categories, fail so miserably in one. It seems to me a re-test of that one category is in order. It is possible for a ball hitting machine to error. Had I been you, I would have re-tested every ball where the expected result, based on the other categories of test, had an unexpected deviation. For the record, I have been playing the Q Star Tour because it is the closest thing to a Pro V but at a $17 per dozen savings.

When there were questions about where the ball landed we checked the data to ensure consistency both for robot delivery and the flight data. That said, when a ball goes significantly offline in a robot test, it’s plenty obvious. As I’ve said, I think people assume that with a robot balls will basically land in the same place. It just doesn’t happen. There absolute consistency from ball to ball just isn’t there.

Steven C

1 year ago

Thanks for another excellent test! I think that this is the best one yet! It is certainly the most applicable for me since I am not in the market for new clubs on a regular basis. Now I just need to get busy losing some of the balls that I have stockpiled so I can switch to a better performing ball.

Ryan Hernandez

1 year ago

I loved reading this but I am still not exactly sure how to decided what ball is right for me. I am around 95-100 mph swing speed. I play all sorts of balls so I need to find one that works. I have really high spin numbers. What would you recommend?

JB

1 year ago

To find your 100 swing speeds, Tyne article recommends selecting both slow and fast speeds on the chart (the last one) and then click the apply icon.

TL;DR – Go with the Snell MTB X. Mizuno RB X and Titleist Pro V1 X will also be good for you but not as good as the Snell and you will pay 33% more for those balls and they will perform slightly worse in every way at your swing speed. At 100 mph, those are your consistently top performers in all categories.

Define ‘really high’ and are you high with all clubs, or just all of them. At 95-100, you’re probably not fast enough to legitimately benefit from a low compression ball, so I’d probably look at a lower spinning, mid-compression ball. The big thing to remember – fit the ball to the irons and wedges and then fit the driver to the golf ball.

Joey

1 year ago

Would the softer balls really provide greater distance for juinors or women in the 70-75mph SS? My junior plays a Wilson Duo or Callaway Supersoft and I wonder if that is the correct ball now? Or is it just marketing?

I doubt you’d see greater distance – although there could be a point where the lower spin comes into play off the driver. That said, if you accept a fitting philosophy that starts around the green and works out, driver distance is the last things you should focus on. Fit the ball to the irons and wedges and then fit the driver to the ball.

BR

Everybody compares their ball to the Pro V1 as they are the gold Standard.
Very Few truly compare. However Snell does. Read up on MR. Snell. He is the designer of the original Pro V1…..which is why his balls do compare…often favorably in performance and they are generally $12 less per dozen….if you buy in bulk.

Dan

We had a few balls in the test that produced shots severely offline (it’s pretty mind-blowing when it happens with a robot). The ball guys we’ve spoken to about it say it’s one of a few things – ball out of round, uncentered layers (core), or a dimple/aerodynamics issue. We can’t know exactly how prevalent the issue is but obviously, it raises some questions. It’s the reason why XV and MTB-X were rated Very Good instead of Excellent.

BoxedCanyons4Me

1 year ago

You test a number of non-OEM balls that likely are not produced in their own factories (and, perhaps some of the well-known brands are also produced by a golf ball plant, that produces multiple brands under the same design and technology envelope). In your work, were you able to identify a couple of “twins” – that is balls that behave nearly identical and maybe look identical in cross-sectional core and layer construction? Just wondering if you could do this, if you could gain some more insights into possible variability in the overall data, like the differences noted in the post streams between yellow and white versions? Thanks for the work here!

Charlie Brownless

1 year ago

Like your thinking should they test for twins would be interesting to see which are very similar.
Also I have a friend who keeps his golf balls on a radiator overnight before he plays golf, as well as keeping a ball in his thermal glove with a hand warmer in case he loses a ball.

Nothing we believe to be absolutely identical. We’ve been told that the Kirkland and one of the Cuts are the same, but the covers are definitely different. There could be some mixing and matching going on – it’s hard to say with any certainty unless the insides are absolutely the same.

Keep in mind that there are near countless other DTC brands around the world selling white label balls. Perhaps it’s not the way of today’s times, but I personally wouldn’t play a ball from a company who doesn’t have at least one employee with his name on a golf ball patent. The reality is that many of the smaller brands are little more than a logo on a ball they didnt’ develop and don’t know all that much about.

ALAN PANTER

1 year ago

Interesting comment about twins. I have just about used up my supply of Dunlop dp1 v3 balls from Sportsdirect (which are no longer available). I read a comment somewhere that these came off the same production line in Indonesia as Z Stars and they certainly seemed the same to me. However, as a result of your excellent article, I have now stocked up on Inesis Tour 900’s (Decathlon only just making a presence in the UK). First impressions are very favourable. They seem a little longer and a little firmer (although your test shows them at a lower compression than Z Stars) and subjectively I also seem to be getting a bit more check. I go for value and what is readily available here. One question I can never seem to find the answer to, is actually how many and where golf ball manufacturing plants are there ? I know Bridgestone etc. make other brands – who else ?

There’s quite a bit of difference when it comes to who makes what and where. I may have covered this before, but since I happened to see this comment pop-up.

Titleist and Bridgestone differ from the rest of the industry in that they make their own rubber/synthetic rubber. Apart from the rawest of materials, they own the product from end to end.
USA consumers may care that both have factories in the US.
Srixon has similar capabilities in its factory in Indonesia.
Callaway has a factory in Massachusetts where it makes some of its balls (including Chrome Soft), but to the best of my knowledge, it does not make its own rubber.
TaylorMade has a factory in the USA, however, its balls are made overseas with the US-based factory’s function limited to putting the covers on the balls.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody else owns the factory where their balls are produced.
The OEMs with actual ball designers typically supply the recipe, but rely on a 3rd party factory to bake the cake.
Once you get into the smaller brands, you’re dealing with primarily white labels stuff. Effectively, it’s putting a logo on and a story behind a ball that someone else designed and manufactured. In some cases, the same ball exists in the market under multiple names. With the USGA placing firm limits on the ball, there’s admittedly less innovation, and as patents enter the public domain, white label makers are able to compete, though it’s important to note that quality/consistency differences can vary significantly between brands and factories.

There’s value to be had for consumers in the white label market, I get that. And while I also understand that tour contracts and other marketing expenses do lead to increased retail costs, I personally wouldn’t/buy or play a ball from a company that doesn’t have at least one employee with their name on a golf ball patent.

JDax

1 year ago

I apologize if this has been answered, but can you address the variance in performance between the Z-Star & the Z-Star (Yellow)? Would the difference in the color of same ball make that big of difference in performance? If so, did you think about testing other yellow versions against their white counterparts to see if this variance carried over to other OEMs?

Ben

Darren R.

1 year ago

I’m so impressed at how comprehensive this test is. The MTB-X compares well to my current ball (Vice Pro), except in carry distance. But, my biggest concern when looking for a ball is “does it help me hit fairways and greens?” So instinctively was drawn towards your Offline, Spin Axis, and Shot Area data. I am wondering where you mention “inconsistencies” on certain shots flying way offline, were those “outlier” shots still included in your average numbers?

Spitfisher

1 year ago

Thanks guys for the testing, my only hope with “all” of your tests that you are buying the product “off the rack” in retail stores. I can guarantee you that product coming from the manufacturer to your facility can be a good batch, a hotter head or a painted shaft, tour use only equipment or product.

Its a common practice in just about every industry now and not limited to smaller manufacturers when it comes to 3rd party testing.

John

Performance data aside, the way I read it both Cut balls had distinct quality and durability issues. There are plenty of balls with equal (and in many cases) better performance without such a short shot-clock.

John

1 year ago

How long is a long time? Can a ball not make it a round without being ruined?

It seems to me that people either lose balls frequently or are so good that they never lose them. In the former, the shot clock doesn’t matter. In the latter, these players should be using the very elite balls, since the durability would matter.

Chris

1 year ago

I’ve played CUT balls for over 6 months now and have not experienced the durability issue… I wonder if this is directly related to changes in their 2019 version… the guys at TXG noticed significant changes in performance between the previous and the newer version (particularly in spin)

Weird things off wedges and the fact that the cover cut on 100% of wedge shots. It’s likely those two things are related. A ball that can’t survive a single wedge shot (70 mph actual head speed) is poor.

Mario

1 year ago

Also keep in mind that head speed is a partial wedge for someone that swings driver at 115 – they could have easily added 10 mph ball speed.

Todd

1 year ago

I noticed the same thing. Very serious durability issues. I played a Blue recently and on the second hole I went to mark the ball and found that the cover was severely damaged and I could literally peel it off the ball. I’ve never had something like that happen to me before.

John

1 year ago

Good answer, Tony.

Could you explain to me how Snell’s balls are rated good now? Because their land areas look atrocious.

First – it’s a little amusing to me that everybody is hyper-focused on the Snell MTB-X. It was one of the longest 3 balls, that was reflected in our Distance, Spin, Value chart. What seems to have been otherwise lost is that we quite literally ranked 4 balls ahead of it while rating 8 others exactly the same.

I’d draw a parallel with the TaylorMade TP5 and TP5X. I can’t say it lived up to what’s been said about distance off the irons, but the performance was well within what we think is a good range. Like the Snell, we did observe some wandering with TP5X (same with ZStar XV) and as we noted, we found a single TP5 with a visibly raised seem. Again we didn’t regard either of these factors as entirely disqualifying, but as with the MTB-X, it was enough of concern for us to move it from Excellent to Very Good.

We’ve covered this before in driver tests. Shot Area is a good metric, but like most any other, it doesn’t tell the entire story. Even in robot testing, there are variables can inflate dispersion. The robot is extremely consistent, but it’s not PERFECTLY consistent. In fact, when you’re hitting your test balls to make sure impact is where you want it and everything else is what it needs to be, a perfectly straight ball is nice, but you’re trying to strike a decent balance between slight draws and slight fades (most apparent in the spin axis tilt measurement). So if you have two balls that are, for example, not perfectly balanced, and one his hit with a slight fade, and the other with a slide draw, you’re going to get a wider shot area than you would for two balls that are really out of balance, but just happen to be hit with a draw bias (or with the heavy side tilting left). Again, like any other metric, it’s useful, but it doesn’t come close to telling a total performance story.

It’s also worth mentioning that we’re using a 2-sigma confidence interval to create what amounts to an ~85% confidence distribution area which results in larger values than the actual dispersion area.

Also keep in mind, that since it’s an area metric, it’s easily expanded by one or two shots.

So what we looked for were performance characteristics we believe would be beneficial to a wide swath of golfers. We also considered consistency across all clubs. Having said that, we didn’t want to make any broad assumptions, and we didn’t want to over-penalize any single aspect of what we saw during testing and in the data.

For the Snell MTB-X (and the TP5X and the ZStar XV) we had some legitimate concerns about balls that wandered offline in high speed testing (and for which that wandering couldn’t be reasonably attributed to other factors). Looking at the totality of it, we believe the performance is appealing (long with low spin off the driver, excellent launch and spin characteristics off the irons, and low-mid launch with higher than average spin off the wedges). By the numbers, that’s the definition of an excellent golf ball. Given the concerns with what we saw (largely in the high spin driver test) we felt dropping it down a level to Very Good was warranted. As I’ve said, there are other examples of balls where this exact scenario played out.

In broad terms, the Excellent balls were those for which we think the speed, launch, and spin characteristics would benefit a broad segment of golfers AND for which we also had no significant concerns in other areas.
For the next level (VERY GOOD), the first part holds true, but there were things we saw during testing that raised a red flag or two.
As you move down the list, performance considerations emerge, as do those same type of red flags.
At Fair, we don’t think the performance is competitive AND there are consistency red flags
Poor, performance issues, red flags, and significant durability concerns.

Alex

1 year ago

They plainly state that Cut balls showed the most wear and tear relatively. If the balls cover is falling apart after a few wedge shots, I’d say they’re right to access poor quality.

Nothing in the immediate future, but it’s something we’re starting to look at. One of the annoyances we almost invariably face when we publish any test is the flood of why didn’t you whatabouters.

We can’t test everything, and while I think we got damn close with this test, for 2-piece surlyn/ionomer, there are significantly more balls to consider, so we’d have to pick and choose. I’d have to have a couple of long conversations with our ball contacts to find settle on a reasonable and manageable way to whittle the field.

Jon

1 year ago

It’s a two-piece Surlyn covered ball.
The write-up states that this test was for 3+ piece Urethane covered (“Tour”) balls aside from the very specific balls that were included as a Surlyn/Ionomer comparison.

I tried the Maxfli Tour based on a MGS email. In a word IMPRESSED. Yes the CG works. My brother comes from way outside and has the expected slice more often than not. After lining it up as instructed it became a beautiful cut. Why he didn’t go straight to Dick’s and buy a case is completely beyond me. As for myself just zero complaints. The price is right on sale and they’re easy to get. It’s my ball for 2019.

Johnny Penso

Same rules apply. Start at the green and work your way out. If you need shot shape correction, it might be worth moving down a category and trying something like an E12 to see if it lives up to Bridgestone’s claims. Depending on speed, you might be the guy who benefits from a soft ball like AVX. Generally, the best way to kill spin is to reduce loft, so depending on where you are now, and what the flight look like, a lower lofted, lower spinning driver (Titleist TS4???) might work.

DL

1 year ago

Thanks Tony, all of this makes sense. I should have mentioned my swing speed with driver is about 103-104 range and I currently use a Cobra Fly-Z at 11.5. Perhaps I’ll try dialing it down to 10.5 to see if that takes down some spin and gives me a bit more distance. In terms of correction I’m normally straightish but sometimes can have a hook if I get too quick at the top. Thanks for your comment.

P.J.

1 year ago

Great data – and I echo the sentiments on the performance (or lack of) on the Cut Grey and Blue balls. I put them on my golf simulator and they were consistently shorter than ProV1’s, Snell and Srixon balls I tested them against.
Performance was also lack-luster out on the course.
I bought a dozen of each to try them out, never got beyond the first sleeve of either one.

P.J.

1 year ago

The 115mph swing is much faster than my swing, and the 85mph is much slower. I fall in the middle with 102mph swing. Which I’d speculate a large group of people sit at. But, there’s no data here. I read Tony’s comments about the ‘most common misconceptions about golf balls is the idea that they perform wildly different at different speeds.’ That’s not what the numbers indicate. For example, MTB-X is #1 in distance for 115mph swings, but for 85mph swing’s, there are 14 other balls that are longer. I understand, it’s not ALL about distance – but inquiring minds want to know, just the same.
So…what do the numbers show for a 100mph swing? Would have loved to see that data.
Having said that – amazing job Tony and the MGS team! You gave us the most comprehensive ball test yet! Many thanks and keep up the fantastic work!!

Stephen DiBari

P.J.

I saw that in the write-up, but it’s an estimation – not the actual numbers. I get the MGS have plenty of things to test and for the industry’s first REAL ball test event – it’s incredibly well done!!

For my own edification, I’d like to have seen all 3 swing speeds documented (85, 100 & 115mph). I know there’s no pleasing everyone and it’s not meant as a complaint at all, just making my comments for what I’d like to see – as it fits my game.

It’s one of things where people WANT to see something, we get that. The thing to understand here is that we’re not flying blind with these tests. We consult with actual experts from around the industry. The consensus is that there’s not much of anything to be learned by adding a speed in the middle. No, the numbers aren’t exact, but that’s not because the logic and the math aren’t solid, it’s because of variances in the balls themselves.

nicebirdie

1 year ago

If you reread the article you might notice this gem.
“*While it’s not absolute, selecting both High and Low swing speed will give you a reasonable approximation of performance at a 100 MPH driver speed.”

MP

TR1PTIK

1 year ago

If you look at the raw data and select both 85MPH and 115MPH, it will provide an average of the two swing speeds – 100MPH. It’s not perfect, but it’s more than close enough for the average golfer to make a confident buying decision. As was explained in the article, performance is pretty linear. When you look at the “longest” ball for 85MPH and 115MPH you’re likely talking about a small difference. In fact, I just looked at the raw data for driver. Carry distance for both balls @ 85MPH is 201.75 (Snell) & 206.42 (ProV1x). 115MPH is 289.35 (Snell) & 282.42 (ProV1x). When selecting both, the averages churn out 245.55 (Snell) & 244.42 (ProV1x).

GilB

1 year ago

I just read the comments about the Cut Blue balls. I played them for a couple months last year and was very impressed to the point where I ordered another 3 dozen, which will be delivered in a few weeks. I just hope their quality control is in order where I don’t get consistent performance. Their customer service isn’t the greatest in the world so buyer beware.

Gerald Lindell

Mike Reed

1 year ago

Great study!! I find it very interesting that the Prov1X was NOT the longest for high swing speeds but WAS the longest for low swing speeds!!! I have been doing ball testing and may have to give the 1X another try. Another variable in this test was the groove and face condition of the clubs used. After all those hits there may have been some wear on the faces which could have affected the data.

steve

Joe Bailey

1 year ago

Amazing article…I have seen some of this when I played the Vice Pro Plus to the Chrome Soft X then to the Bridgestone B RX. I have lost distance with the driver on multiple occasions like sometimes 20 yards. This is just unreal data your team has compiled. I for one will be switching balls based on this data…just bought the MTB-X. Can’t wait to get it on the course. Thanks Tony and the rest of the team keep up the great work!!!1

Joe

1 year ago

This chart just confirmed to me what I have wondered for years. I went on my own best ball hunt for going on roughly 3 years now(since Nike stopped making balls). Top Flight, Callaway, Titliest, Volvik, Bridgestone etc.. I ultimately settled on a chrome soft or chrome soft x, finally going with the x in truvis. For some reason it just never seemed consistent, some days were better than others. I the said the heck with it and went to the Pro V1, in one round it was clearly more consistent, more reliable all around. I went back and forth between sleeves, Chrome soft, Pro V1, Chrome soft X, Pro V1X etc. ProVs were always better. I really couldn’t understand it they are pretty much in the same price range and they certainly have equal hype, minus the tour buy off on the chrome soft. Since these results came in looks like it will be ProV1 or ProV1X forever! Really appreciate you guys putting numbers to something I couldn’t and reaffirming I am not as crazy as I thought!

Stevegp

Scott

1 year ago

So all these driver distances are total carry, some balls roll out very differently after landing. Are balls with a flatter descent angle and lower spin rate going to catch up after the initial carry? What’s an idea on how much that would factor in to total driver distance?

Shallower decent and lower spin will change roll equations, but not by any significant margins. For example, when factoring in roll, the gap between the longest and the shortest balls at high swing speeds narrows by less than 2 yards. It’s also true that in high speed driver testing, the difference spin difference between the longest ball and the shortest ball was, I believe, 8 RPM on average.

With a repeatable swing (robot) the launch and spin difference are appreciable, but not nearly what you get in human testing where one guy spins it 2100 and another 3800. There you see big roll difference…apples to apples, it’s minimal.

Chris

1 year ago

Can you release the total distance numbers? Fitting a ball to carrry isn’t what most people do in a ball fitting.

Jon

1 year ago

While a lower descent angle and lower spin will increase roll-out, course conditions are variable, as soon as the ball touches the floor you have “lost control” of the shot.
On a dry, well manicured, hard fairway you may get loads of roll-out in both, by the same token on a wet and soft fairway then no matter how low the angle of descent or spin, the ball may be stopping the moment it lands.
Carry is the logical data as that will remain (relatively) consistent. You can extrapolate the rest for yourself from launch angle and backspin data if you want to guess at total potential distance

Jon

1 year ago

The problem with “total” distance is that it doesn’t factor in the effect the ground will have on the ball.
On a hard surface then low descent and low backspin would create a lot long roll-out, but on a very soft fairway both balls will stop pretty much where they land. Or you may get a bad bounce regardless. Or…

Carry is the critical number, you can make sensible guesses at roll based on the launch angle and backspin, but due to external factors they will always be guesses.

Mark

1 year ago

I’ve played the Volvik S4 and have had some of my longest drives with them. I knew they really spinned around the greens. Bubba might have given them a bad rap when that 1 year trial didn’t work however people should at least try a sleeve for themselves.

BenEagles

1 year ago

For me the MTBX is the holy grail of golf balls for us mid handicappers. It’s got fantastic distance great control and does not balloon on short irons the way every other urethane tour ball does for me.

The values of ball speed, launch, and spin will change but the relationship between two balls won’t. The ball reacts to what the club does, the higher spinning ball, for example, would still be expected to be the higher spinning ball regardless of the iron type.

Foz

1 year ago

Just bought 4 Dozen Maxfli Tour/Tour X…..looks like I did good….got them for $20/dozen. Thanks much MGS Staff.

I think they’re going to become very popular in short order. Dick’s is on the verge of making a real dent in the avid golfer market. Just wish they’d bring back the Pro’s to run their golf departments.

We explicitly avoided naming winners because of the complexity of golf ball performance. There was a ton of discussion internally about what we should do as far as ratings go. What we settled on…

The balls rated excellent were those for which we had no major concerns (no wildly offline shots, generally consistent (and good) performance, no significant variation in compression, etc.). That said, one of those 4 balls may not be the best for you.

The next level down are balls that we had one or two minor concerns, but nothing entirely disqualifying. Definitely stuff that’s worth a look, especially if the performance characteristics are appealing to you.

It’s diminishing returns from there IMO. Once you get into low compression, and matte finishes (jumpy when wet), you’re looking at very specific benefits for a small percentage of golfers.

Tony

Spin will generally increase as AoA gets steeper, but the resulting performance is linear. If a steeper AoA makes ball X spin 5% more, you can reasonably expect ball Y to spin by the same percentage. The ball simply reacts to the force exerted by the club. Hammer vs. nail…that sort of thing.

mngolfer

Tom Wasley

1 year ago

I feel fortunate to have MyGolfSpy to turn to for the FACTS. I must have a bushel basket of golf balls and play them all from time to time. I think what you are concluding is to pick a “not very soft” ball that I get good performance from around the green and from 150 yards in. Stick with it and work on my swing. OK, I trust your work and will do as you suggest! Forget the tour pros, don’t try to relate my game to theirs and work on being a better amateur. Got it, thanks guys.

Robert

1 year ago

First off, this is incredible information and love it. I’ll continue to look at it to digest as much as possible. So far it seems that what I’ve found in my own testing seems to match what you have here. That’s good to know and means I can trust my instincts…to an extent…

I have one question that sticks out to me as interesting. In the total metrics for balls, the Bridgestone Tour X and the TP5x have almost identical launch numbers for a driver. However the Tour X is on avg 9 yards longer than the TP5x. Does that come down to the “dimples, core center, manufacturing” questions that can’t be answered, or is there another reason? It stuck out to me as I haven’t really seen that in my own testing. They, as the raw numbers show, are really close to each other off the driver.

For awhile I was doing the round testing that Bryson does and saw some balls are more inconsistent than others. I haven’t done it in awhile, but after reading this, I’m going to start doing it again.

Matt S

1 year ago

Dimple pattern has a huge effect on aerodynamics and flight but wouldn’t show up in initial launch conditions but rather down the range data like max height, landing angle, and carry. You see this a lot with “tour” versions of balls.

Sam S

1 year ago

What can be said for juniors? My son is almost 9 and 50 pounds on a good day so his swing speed is not that fast. It has increased lately with SuperSpeed and pushes around 61-63 now. If I am looking for a great performing tournament ball then anything in Excellent or Great category should work? I had noticed better performance with him playing ProV1’s lately over his standard softer balls.

Anton Murphy

1 year ago

First off this is by far the best report on golf balls I’ve read. So really well done!
I play on a links. Will an off line hit (say slice/block) with driver be impacted more in strong cross winds by the higher spinning balls?

Peter

BoxedCanyons4Me

1 year ago

Great data and lots of good visuals to consider… it will take some time to sort through it all for me. Did you do much testing on feel besides compression? Couldn’t tell.

Also – on the distance measures – are you taking averages of averages across different ball speeds or is there more math to it? Since distance estimates depend on a combination of speed, launch and spin – its essentially a simultaneous equation with perhaps a near infinite number of set up possibilities. Can you help shed some light on how you approached that with your data analysis and what that means relative to the standard deviation tabs?

Thanks for the advancement! Sounds like Snell, Kirkland and Vice are great alternatives to pricey OEM balls!

Rodrigo Cortes

Jamey Commons

1 year ago

Played the Snell red last year and loved them. Switched to the Snell MTB X this year and can’t say enough good things about it. Noticeably less spin on the driver and more spin on the scoring irons. For $30 a dozen it’s a no brainer!

Walter

Scott

1 year ago

I see you tested the 3 piece Kirkland ball. This is a different ball than the Kirkland you tested last year or the year before (4 piece). Is there a reason why you did not test both? Could you put the stats for the 4 piece into perspective?

Scott

1 year ago

I have several dozen if you want me to send some over. I agree with your prior head to head with the pro v, so I scooped em up.

Jason

1 year ago

Really comprehensive test. I love being able to manipulate the tables but also having the visibility of the graphs. What really stands out is the dispersion data as well as the std deviation table. Shocking to see some of the outliers, especially in an otherwise top performing ball like MTB-X.

Bubba Daley

DTown3011

1 year ago

Really interesting and insightful test, thank you. I know how much time and effort it takes to posting this stuff. Interesting to see where my current ball (Chrome Soft X) places on the ball speed chart. If anything, I just ordered a test box of the Snell MTB’s and will be putting those through the testing ringer. Thanks again for posting.

BILL H

BoxedCanyons4Me

1 year ago

This is likely typical noise in the data; and the actual variations/deviations of performance are not as large (range size of the data from min to max) as might be extracted from the data averaging. The differences are probably more exaggerated at very high and very low ball speeds where a “smash factor” would be measurable – or not.

Peter M

1 year ago

Terrific article MGS! I’d like to know if you had an opinion on this too! The dispersion is also significantly different. I’m sure the data is correct, so i wonder if the yellow paint has a minor effect on aerodynanics? In the article it states that matte balls are affected more significantly by moisture, though i don’t think the Srixon yellow is matte?

Daniel

1 year ago

An excellent piece of work! Congrats! Quick qu, given that the ProV1, The Z Star, The RBX, have all existed for a number of generations, can you specify which year they were? I know the ProV and ZStar launched new lines this year, interested to know if they made the cut date. thanks
Dan

That said, I do want to note that new Chrome Soft X Triple Track wasn’t tested. It wasn’t’ available at retail when we tested, and Callaway didn’t provide it for testing. The CSX Triple Track is NOT the same ball as the current White/Yellow/Truvis Chrome Soft X. We’re told it’s the recipe the majority of Callaway’s Tour Staff is playing. Given what we know about performance and what tour players want, I’d wager that it’s appreciably higher compression (firmer), longer, and higher spin around the green, than any other CS/CSX variant currently on shelves.

Justin Nash

1 year ago

Is there any difference in a fresh or newly produced ball and some new ones that have sat around for a period of time? Any data suggesting that may cause a change in performance?

Andrew Han

dcorun

1 year ago

I love your testing which I think is the best in the business. My question is that it seems the best performing balls were the most expensive. I play the Srixon Q-Star Tour and it is the longest ball I’ve hit in some time. SS is 88-90. It falls in the good category and only costs $30 a dz. Am I cheating myself by not buying a higher priced ball?

Boyo

Tom54

1 year ago

Thanks for all the hard work. My big takeaway is finding one ball and sticking with it, which I’m happy to say I already do. Most of what’s in my bag is what I find at my course. We have a great Pro-V1 exchange program there.

Terry

1 year ago

So I am a high speed and high spin player. My driver spin avgs around 2800-3200, my 7 iron spins over 7000 and my log wedge spins over 12,000. I was fitted for the Titleist AVX ball which seems to be the correct choice for me since it has less spin, especially with full wedge shots since I can spin the ball off the green if i’m not carefull. So in my case would the AVX still be only a “fair” option for me?

Terry

Doc

Max Johnson

1 year ago

this is excellent data and indicative of the amount of work you all certinly put forth for this test. Im curious if there is any way to extrapolate data for the Bridgestone balls and apply them toward their downmarket bretheren, specifically the e6?

Last time I was “fitted” for a ball, I was told that a 3 piece, low spin ball was best for me. My miss is generally a slice, so I try to mitigate that as much as possible by playing a lower spinning ball (staying near the hole im playing generally benefits me more in a round than a few extra RPMs around the greens).

SO, in short this is all awesome info and having it provided for free is something I appreciate. BUT, Im hoping there might be something else coming down the pipe for the more parsimonious of us out there. If not, no worries, because this site is the first (sometimes only) place I go to do research before making a purchse, but no harm is asking, right?

No. I don’t think we can extrapolate much about the downmarket stuff with any certainty. Given the availability of reasonably consistent urethane balls at affordable prices, I’d tell everyone to go with Urethane (better around the green). The possible exception (we haven’t tested it) is for some sort of shot shape correction where the internal balance (thickness/weighting of layers) could presumably help with straighter flight.

That said…and I doubt it’s something most golfers have ever really thought about…we observed that the surylyn covered balls jumped more and spun less (on a relative basis) when wet.

Charlie

1 year ago

I’m sad you didn’t include the Bridgestone e6 speed and e12 speed in this test. Still the best ball I’ve found for straightness and low spin.

Max Johnson

1 year ago

I DEMAND MORE OF MY INCREDIBLY INFORMATIVE FREE INTERNET CONTENT! Juuuust kidding. Even if it didnt include my ball, great stuff none the less. The E6 really does wonders for the “straight ball” so I’ll likely just stick with it (and stop worrying about the handful of yards I may be losing because 270 in the short stuff is better than 280 in the trees (not to mention distance loss from the slice)

Nocklaus

1 year ago

Yes, a str8 ball would be the best ball for me, I am pretty cosistent with the driver and I want to know where the ball is going, so all equipment that makes the ball go consistently str8 would be the best. The best balls doesn’t differ all that much in distance anyway

Mike

1 year ago

Max I would double check what you were fitted to. If you’re battling a slice that means side spin is high enough to overcome backspin. People often don’t realize that backspin is what stabilizes a ball flight. That’s why your high spinning wedge shots tend not to slice the way a driver does. It’s also why if you watch long drive contests they are wildly offline most of the time because their backspin falls below 2000 rpms and it’s basically a knuckleball. If you go watch the guys at TXG, they mention how someone who slices a driver thinks “I need less spin so lower spin driver” and it makes the problem worse because they’re cutting backspin off which is actually stabilIzing. I’m no expert but if the logic is a low spin driver can make a slice worse, a low spin golf ball might be doing the same. I would try a high spin ball on the range (don’t try on course until you can verify) but I’m willing to be a higher spin ball might actually make you straighter.

Trevor

Jaughn

1 year ago

When looking for consistency, should we be comparing shot area, standard deviation of carry and offline, or just difference offline? Also, what are your thoughts on why some balls have variation in shot area between swing speeds and others don’t?

I wish I had a perfect answer for you. There’s no single ideal metric for consistency. The standard deviation of compression is an interesting one, I think. Offline numbers are interesting for sure as well.

As far as swing speed goes, whatever the ball is doing (good or bad) will be exaggerated with speed. 115mph driver is where we saw the really crazy stuff (balls flying 20, 30, even 40 yards offline). That’s almost certainly manufacturing defect.

I actually stood on the range for the high speed 7-iron test, and even that was eye-opening…every now and again, a ball would fly appreciably longer, or shorter, or more left, or more right.

Don

Have you guys done any testing ever on the TaylorMade project (a)? I’ve played this ball for years and consistently see it perform better (At least for me) than the TP5. Curious how it compares to Snell MTB X.

Brad G.

1 year ago

I was just on Snell’s website and they have a Comparison Chart listing balls from Titleist, Taylormade, Calaway, and Bridgestone to the Snell ball they recommend trying. According to the chart they recommend the MTB-X if you play the TM Project (a). I’m going to grab a dozen to test out the theory.

Marty

Glad you included std devs – some interesting outliers in those data. Can you shed some light on how accurate trackman (or whatever launch monitor was used) is in capturing mph, rpms, etc.?

MiGregB

1 year ago

Wanna know how I know that this is a comprehensive, unbiased & well presented report? More than a dozen comments so far and not even one troll yet. Excellent test and report guys! It’ll take a while to go through and completely digest, but makes me a bit embarrassed at the relatively small donation I make each year. I have to re-evaluate that!

Caleb

In #3 of “6 Takeaways” (A SOFT GOLF BALL IS A SLOW GOLF BALL), you said:

“A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a ‘soft’ golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee (unless you swing under 85 MPH) and spin around the green.”

So from that, I derive that a “soft” ball is costing players who swing faster (more than 85 MPH) distance. So this would mean that slower-swinging players (under 85 mph) would potentially be the only ones who saw some distance help from a “soft” ball?

BUT, shortly after, you said:

“We get that some of you love soft feel, but the reality is that the only golfers likely to see real performance benefits from low compression balls are high speed, high spin players. That’s probably not you.”

So now it seems that high speed swingers are benefitting from soft golf balls? I’m a little confused on that.

I’m really interested in this study because I’ve been looking into compression ratings and hitting soft balls compared to harder balls ever since the marketing trend began. I can “feel” a big difference when I hit a Chrome Soft or a Project(a) compared to a ProV1X or ProV1 (especially with irons), and from my limited research, I was convinced that if I was able to compress a ball more (because it had lower compression), then it would translate into more distance. This study is saying that a soft ball is a slower ball and a firmer ball is a longer ball. I do not disagree with this, because I trust the research, but if you could clarify what you were saying in #3, I’d appreciate it!

There is a point at which spin, when paired with high speed, becomes a larger factor in the distance conversation. It becomes the thing that is costing players distance, so even if you lose a bit of speed, the reduction in spin can be a net positive for distance.

The trends in our data suggest that once you get below 85 MPH (I think it’s probably around 80), you essentially reach a near breakeven point with a soft ball the % loss in ball speed doesn’t significantly impact yards lost. However, while you may not be losing distance, you are giving up spin, and the overwhelming majority of slow swing speed golfers need more spin.

Caleb

1 year ago

Thank you. That makes more sense now.

Joey Weiss

1 year ago

So at what speed do you presume a softer compression would benefit. For instance, with my driver speed of about 130, would a softer ball perform better? Seems like most of my clubs, i get really high peak heights and may be sacrificing some distance because of it.

TRIPTIK

1 year ago

I’m sure one of the MGS guys can do a better job explaining, but the statement about high speed/high spin players being able to benefit from a soft golf ball suggests that they’d see said benefit via reduced spin which can be detrimental to maximum distance. Slower swing speeds need spin to maximize distance as backspin provides lift and allows the ball to stay in the air longer. High swing speeds can make due and will often benefit from reduced spin assuming the player can launch the ball high enough to optimize flight. Hope that helps.

Seth

They sure do, don’t they? The reality is, nobody makes a perfect ball 100% of the time, but what we saw during the test suggests some are better than others. There were balls that went significantly offline despite a consistent swing and near perfect impact. The ball guys we’ve discussed it with say it happens when a ball isn’t round, when the layers (notably the core) aren’t properly centered, or when there’s an aerodynamics issue (wonky dimples).

DTown3011

1 year ago

Crazy to think – maybe the next wave of golf ball marketing will be a company touting consistency in manufacturing/balance? No different than what TaylorMade is doing this year with regards to the injected “twist face” and being able to manufacture all drivers at the limit. Have to think this is next.

Trent Wunstel

1 year ago

Would it be the simple truth that balls that spin more will have higher dispersion? You state the robot had a slight draw, and the higher spinning balls have a higher shot area. I know this is obvious, but does this indicate the higher dispersion for the MTB-X over say the MTB is because it spins more? I did the test pack last year and the Red was definitely more “offline” than the Black for me, so I chose the Black. I also spun the bejesus with the Red. I understand it isn’t the same ball as the MTB-X, but it sure sounds like it with the dispersion/spin.

I don’t believe so. All other things being equal, more spin usually equals straighter. Not to go too deep into the weeds, but the same factors that produce high spin – a wider difference between attack angle and dynamic loft (a value Trackman calls Spin Loft) generally produce straighter flight because as spin loft increases it becomes more difficult to tilt the spin axis, which is what causes the ball to curve.

Juan Trujillo

1 year ago

Recently picked up the Maxfli Tour golf balls and was surprised how well they performed. Glad to see this back it up.

Berniez40

1 year ago

My favourite MGS Article to date. Great info, great data, well constructed overall format——just simply top notch. Is it possible that we can now finally bury the marketing mantra of “Long and Soft”……?
I felt that I used to lose distance to compression and took the bait, only to find my 72 Compression Nike Hyperflights flew well past my lower compression three piece balls, and kept wondering how a ball of 6 year old vintage could do that. Now I know. Looks like I’ll have to try Pro V1 X’s one more time.—THANKS MGS

Reid Thompson

Tyler

1 year ago

I noticed the big differences comparing the z star and z star (yellow). I am looking at buying the Snell MTB X, but since you only tested the white ball do you think there will be some variance between the yellow and white MTB X?

Vince L

Matty

1 year ago

As respectful as I can possibly be – do you know how to read data Vince? There was a 6 yard difference with driver between the same model ball that was produced in two different colors. Clearly that’s not just paint on the walls. MGS literally provides the data in an easy to understand way that allows you to compare different balls. Also, it is perfectly acceptable to wonder why the same ball in different colors produced different performances. Maybe this speaks to manufacturing tolerances, but maybe there’s a unique process when making the urethane yellow that impacts the performance of the ball. We will never know the answer without asking the question. Try being curious!

Tyler

1 year ago

Clearly can’t read….

Alex

1 year ago

Chalk it up to manufacturing tolerances most likely – there should be no discernible differences in the yellow vs white golf balls of the same brand and model.

There has been some chatter over the years about differences. Vice’s paint analogy doesn’t really hold up as coloring a golf ball is more complex than latex paint. There’s actual chemistry that comes into play, which means there are differences in the formulation. We didn’t find anything I would call conclusive, but the differences in the high swing speed driver test were more than we can reasonbly chalk up to manufacturing tolerances alone.

Eric Halfbee

11 months ago

I know this is absolutely stupid, but I have played much of the past year with white and yellow AVX balls (prior to reading MGS EXCELLENT scientific review—Calloway’s sour grapes press release notwithstanding—and have now changed over to Snell balls) and my overwhelming IMPRESSION is that the yellow AVX are softer and less “clicky” off the putter than the white AVX. Reading between the lines of Dean Snells comments on his outstanding interview I did wonder whether the yellow pigment has some impact on the balls cover polymer, maybe to make it more flexible or whatever. Interested in other people’s thoughts.

Garrett

1 year ago

You say that for high speed high spin players, a soft ball is where you would see performance increases? How fast is high speed and how much is high spin? i would consider myself both of those.

Kent

JohnSmalls

Joe

1 year ago

Love the info here!! And from the iron fitting I did last week, these results are exactly what I saw regarding the Snell MTB-x, TP5x, and Mizuno RB TourX… I played the tp5x all last year and always regarded myself as a low spin player. After warming up with my iron simply switched to the Mizuno and right away got an extra 1000rpm. My fitter asked what I did differently and I simply said switched balls. next 3 with the Mizuno were all about 1000 extra as well. Tried the Snell MTB-x and it was in the middle spin wise between Mizuno and TM.

Had some time left after my iron fitting so hit my driver and the Snell was almost 2mph faster than both. I actually had the Snell 200rpm lower than the TP5x….needless to say the MTB-x is my new go to ball

Gordon

1 year ago

Love the numbers and the testing!!!
Keep it up!!!

I have to say, I am surprised the Vice Pro Plus was lower compression than the 3 piece Vice Pro.
I have felt I played the Plus better off the tee and around the green to be honest.
I have a box each of TP5x, Mizuno RB tour X and Honma 6Piece balls waiting to try them out in the next month or so. Interesting to see this data before hand.

With the Pro V1 and Pro V1x, the differences are, as you noticed, marginal, so there may be a condition under which the x launches higher. The data suggests just a couple of 10ths of degrees between them.

David

1 year ago

Having just recently spent a lot of time testing the new prov1 and x
I agree both are near identical off the driver (I actually found the 1 slightly faster but only by 1.5mph), I did find the x to launch higher and spin about 600 rpm more for me with 7 iron.
So for my personal results were more inline with Titleist.
(individual results will clearly vary)
Anyways, being a very high speed guy looking for lower spin, pro v1 it was. (especially noticed the spin reduction hitting from about 6i up back into the wind, no ballooning)

Guy Bean

1 year ago

Great test lads, looking at the stats etc it looks like I have been playing the right ball in the Titleist tour soft
Thanks

Jon

You’re not going to find a ball that’s draw or fade bias. The left/right stuff is going to be influenced by very slight delivery differences in robot delivery coupled with other factors (manufacturing stuff).

seabass

Battlewagon

1 year ago

I was curious on this as well – as I play exclusively Cut Blue and love them. Great feel and great carry. I believe it’s rated poor because as I look through the review there appeared to be problems with consistency among Cut balls – as well as being very easy to cut (no pun intended) with a wedge. I haven’t found that at all though – so maybe it was just luck of the draw.

Blue is better than Grey though neither is notable for any area of performance. Grey is slow relative to its compression and short without offering benefit in other areas to compensate for it. Blue is short of wedges, and while in an of itself, that shouldn’t be a big deal, we did see some things in the ball flight that were cause for concern.

Finally, when you test 36 balls under absolutely identical conditions and only 2 (the cut balls) show cover damage (after a single swing, no less) significant enough to impact performance, they stand out for all the wrong reasons.

Brett Pearce

I would love to see golf ball testing done at a clubhead speed between 85 and 115 MPH, because I have a strong suspicion that a vast majority of MGS’s readers and followers fall somewhere near midpoint between these speeds. I certainly do (driver speed = between 96 – 102 MPH and 6-iron between 80 – 82 MPH). I have been using the Srixon Q-Star Tour ball almost exclusively for the last two years, with the Snell MTB Black as my #2 favorite ball. However, I suspect that there may be some better ball choices for me at my clubhead speed range.

Prior to getting ill with cancer over the last two years (and aging), I was at 108 – 110 MPH with the driver and the upper 80s with my middle irons, and the Srixon Z-Star XV or TM Tour Preferred X (now the TPx) were my balls of choice. Maybe I should still be playing something similar to those balls, even with my diminished clubhead speed?

One of the most common misconceptions about golf balls is the idea that they perform wildly different at different speeds. That’s simply not the case. A slow ball at 85 is slow at 115. A spinny ball at 85 is spinny at 115. There are no performance peaks and valleys at 100 MPH. With allowances for manufacturing tolerances, it’s all surprisingly linear. Draw a line between a performance metric at 85 MPH and that same metric at 115 MPH, and the midpoint between the two is going to give you a really good idea of how it will perform at 100 MPH.

Thanks, Tony! BTW, I got to try the Snell MTBX balls this evening in my 9-hole golf league. They performed very well for me in cool and windy conditions, and I shot my best 9-hole score so far this year. I think that the MTBX is at least as long as the Srixon Q-Star Tour ball, and I much preferred the spin of teh MTBX into the greens, stopping shots with everything from an 8-iron to a 54* wedge within a foot or two of where the balls hit on the greens.